Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance Committee Agenda - June 11, 2015 1 This Finance Committee is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Among other things, the Brown Act requires that the Finance Committee’s agenda be posted at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of each regular meeting and that the public be allowed to comment on agenda items before the Finance Committee and items not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee may limit public comments to a reasonable amount of time, generally three (3) minutes per person. It is the intention of the City of Newport Beach to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City of Newport Beach will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. If requested, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office at least forty- eight (48) hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible at (949) 644- 3005 or cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA NEWPORT COAST CONFERENCE ROOM, BAY 2E 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH JUNE 11, 2015, 4:00 P.M. FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS: STAFF MEMBERS: Keith Curry, Chair / Council Member Diane Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem Tony Petros, Council Member Bill McCullough, Committee Member Larry Tucker, Committee Member John Warner, Committee Member Jack Wu, Committee Member Dave Kiff, City Manager Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director / Treasurer Steve Montano, Deputy Director, Finance Marlene Burns, Administrative Specialist to the Finance Director ____________________________________________________ I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments are invited on agenda and non-agenda items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Speakers must limit comments to three (3) minutes. Before speaking, we invite, but do not require, you to state your name for the record. The Finance Committee has the discretion to extend or shorten the speakers’ time limit on agenda or non-agenda items, provided the time limit adjustment is applied equally to all speakers. As a courtesy, please turn cell phones off or set them in the silent mode. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Summary: Approval of the March 10, 2015, Joint City Council/Finance Committee Minutes and the May 11, 2015, Finance Committee Minutes. Recommended Action: Approve and file. V. CURRENT BUSINESS A. MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE Summary: Chapter 3.36 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“Municipal Code”) requires that user fees for municipal services be recovered at 100%, unless otherwise provided for in Municipal Code Finance Committee Meeting Agenda June 11, 2015 Page 2 Section 3.36.030. After careful analysis and review by MGT of America, Inc. (“MGT”), staff developed and proposes updates to the fees for the Police, Fire, Public Works, and Community Development Departments. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Finance Committee direct staff to bring the attached changes for City Council approval. B. BUSINESS LICENSE Summary: Pursuant to recent Council direction, staff will present an overview of the City’s Business License Tax to the Finance Committee. Recommended Action: Receive and file. C. QUESTION/ANSWERS PERTAINING TO FY 2015/16 ADOPTED BUDGET Summary: As a follow up to the last Finance Committee, the Committee is welcome to continue its questions and comments about the FY 2015/16 Adopted Budget. All questions and comments are still relevant even following Council adoption of the FY 2015/16 budget, as the input will help frame both budget adjustments and planning for the FY 2016/17 budget, which begins relatively soon. Recommended Action: The Committee may ask questions specific to the Adopted FY 2015/16 Budget or any topics pertaining to City finance practices, policies, and procedure. D. FINANCE COMMITTEE SCHEDULE UPDATE Summary: The Finance Committee work plan represents the planned topics of discussion; however, is subject to change based on the availability of information and the need to schedule other topics as they arise. This item proposes an update to previous work plan schedule. VI. ADJOURNMENT June 11, 2015, Finance Committee Agenda Comments These comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council Finance Committee agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item III. PUBLIC COMMENTS It is good to see some items of City business being referred to the reconstituted Finance Committee for its review and recommendation. In my view there are many more in which the public and Council would have benefitted from the Finance Committee’s comments. For example, in the month since the Committee’s last meeting the Council has been asked to make decisions about a labor agreement, insurance levels and premiums, many contracts which may or may not have been in the City’s best interest and a sale of City-owned property. The Council also recently heard about a wastewater (sewer) rate study (leading to a recommendation for substantially changed rates including an increased single family residential charge) which the “old” Finance Committee had on its agenda last November, but to the best of my knowledge the old Committee’s recommendations regarding it were not part of the report. Item IV.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 11, 2015, Finance Committee Minutes The following corrections are suggested: Page 4, Item C, paragraph 3: “Finance Director Matusiewicz reported that the budget is reflective of community goals, policies and priorities and emphasize emphasizes those qualities that make Newport Beach, exceptional.” Page 6, final paragraph: “The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 11, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., in …” The date and time quoted is the starting time of the May meeting. My recollection is the agenda was posted well in advance. If the posting came less than 72 hours before the May 11th meeting, then the Finance Committee would have met in violation of the Brown Act. And the following general comments: Based on my recollection of the May 11th meeting, the draft minutes appear to offer a fairly complete record of the topics that were discussed, but if one was not there it is difficult to tell what was said about most of those topics and by whom. Indeed, in one would need to have been present to even know what several of the listed topics signify. As an example, I recall Committee Member Jack Wu had a long series of questions about the budget detail, and Members Warner and McCullough had a smaller number of detailed questions at various points in the budget presentation. I would not know this from the minutes. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Special Meeting/Joint Meeting of the City Council and Finance Committee March 10, 2015 Volume 62 - Page 232 I. ROLL CALL - 4:30 p.m. Present: Finance Committee Member Dixon, Finance Committee Member Petros, Finance Committee Member McCullough, Finance Committee Member Tucker, Finance Committee Member Wu, Finance Committee Chair Curry Present: Council Member Peotter, Council Member Petros, Council Member Curry, Council Member Duffield, Council Member Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem Dixon, Mayor Selich Absent: Finance Committee Member Warner (excused) II. CURRENT BUSINESS 1. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Early Look and Project Prioritization [100-2015] Mayor Selich recused himself regarding discussions about the Bayside Drive Rehabilitation – Marine Avenue to PCH Project because he resides on Bayside Drive. City Manager Kiff introduced the item and noted that this is the early look at what staff is proposing to include in the budget. Public Works Director Webb provided a PowerPoint presentation, addressing streets and drainage related to Bayside Drive. In response to Council questions, Public Works Director Webb noted the need to develop concepts in order for the City to apply for M2 or Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant funding. He was unsure whether ATP funding would apply and stated that staff is looking at the possibility of a roundabout on this street. Council Member Curry noted that this needs to be a major safety priority moving forward. Public Works Director Webb reported that staff is looking at safety and changing the street into more of a multimodal area. He added that there is a lot of bike traffic in the area and staff is looking at the possibility of a roundabout at the intersection of Harbor Drive and Bayside Drive. In response to Finance Committee Member Wu, Public Works Director Webb stated that there are cases where staff has tried but roundabouts have not been built. He referenced Ladera Ranch, noting a roundabout as an integral design element that works successfully. He suggested that staff consider the matter carefully before spending the money to implement a roundabout. In response to questions, Public Works Director Webb explained that placing a signal at the intersection would be an option, but addressed challenges, including costs and the need to meet speed warrants. He also noted that there is no room for installing a stop sign. Jim Mosher thanked staff for making the presentation available in advance and commented on the number of projects involved. City of Newport Beach Special Meeting/Joint Meeting of the City Council and Finance Committee March 10, 2015 Volume 62 - Page 233 Public Works Director Webb reported that the format was changed at the last minute due to Council conflicts and advice from the City Attorney's Office regarding recusals. Council Member Duffield recused himself regarding discussions about Mariners Mile – Highway Configuration and Land Use Review Project since he has a business in the area. Public Works Director Webb addressed the Mariners Mile highway configuration and land-use review as requested by residents to deal with traffic congestion and by area businesses to foster redevelopment. He noted that the City is working with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on a regional study and addressed a design charrette and funds available to start the design. He discussed possible funding sources, deferring costs, exploring public/private partnerships, and the need for further discussion on the matter. Council Member Petros noted that there is already an investment in the OCTA study, there is a set-aside for a consultant to do focused work, and the Community Development staff is engaged in land-use planning issues. He asked if this is a separate consideration and Public Works Director Webb stated that there are several projects but staff simply wants to reaffirm Council direction. Council Member Petros expressed support for continued diligence in the track that Council has set; indicating that he did not feel continuing it would require additional budgetary amounts. He added that the City is already on track and there is little impact on the current budget. In response to Mayor Selich's question, Public Works Director Webb addressed the deliverables. Council Member Peotter stated that he would like to see a detailed presentation on this matter before spending a lot of money on design. Public Works Director Webb noted that, in this case, there has been a significant amount of effort made and wanted to make sure that Council is aware of it and listed next steps. Council Member Peotter reported that the charrette is completely changing the way Mariners Mile functions and stated that it is not a decision that the Council has yet made. Council Member Curry stated that the matter has not been adequately designed to the point where Council knows what it will cost or what it will do. He noted the need to do some of the design work to answer those questions and know what this will look like to know whether to move forward with it or not. He stated that businesses in the neighborhood are very concerned with throughput and traffic, the solutions are complicated, and staff should continue working on it and bring it back to Council for decision-making. Finance Committee Member Wu stated that he sits on the OCTA M2 Oversight Committee and City Attorney Harp suggested that he recuse himself from this item. Finance Committee Member Wu recused himself since he serves on the OCTA M2 Oversight Committee that reviews M2 Funds. Public Works Director Webb reported that this item is a reaffirmation of Council direction and that staff has every intention to keep moving forward. Council Member Petros commented on the numerous Mariners Mile Association meetings he has attended where it has been discussed that the City is allowing this area to turn to blight. City of Newport Beach Special Meeting/Joint Meeting of the City Council and Finance Committee March 10, 2015 Volume 62 - Page 234 He stated that they would like to see this area revitalized and that residents believe that throughput and congestion are important issues to address. He added that there is momentum by virtue of the work that has already been done. Council Member Muldoon suggested speeding up the project and commented on improvements to the standard of living. Public Works Director Webb addressed CIP General Fund goals, new projects and re-budgets, and facilities. Mayor Selich asked regarding the life of the new apparatus for the Mariners Fire Station and Public Works Director Webb reported that the living quarters were rehabilitated several years ago and is in good shape. Regarding the apparatus bay, he stated that it would have a 50 year life. Council Member Curry stated that he is glad that staff is moving forward on the Corona del Mar Library and Fire Station. Public Works Director Webb addressed streets and drainage on 15th Street/Balboa Boulevard, Fiscal Year (FY) 14/15 residential street overlay, Irvine Avenue pavement rehab, Newport Boulevard/32nd Street modifications, and Ocean Boulevard and Poppy Avenue pavement reconstruction. In response to Mayor Selich’s question, Public Works Director Webb reported that the Cameo Shores project includes every residential street in Cameo Shores. Public Works Director Webb continued discussing streets and drainage projects, including PCH and Old Newport Boulevard street modifications, MacArthur Boulevard pavement rehab, FY 15/16 street lighting replacement, storm drain system video evaluation, and the Citywide concrete and pavement replacement program. In response to Council Member Petros’ question regarding PCH and Old Newport Boulevard, Deputy Public Works Director Vukojevic stated that two alternatives in the environmental analysis are being considered including a right-of-way swap and a right-of-way acquisition. Public Works Director Webb addressed transportation projects, water quality and environmental projects, and parks, harbor and beaches projects. Council Member Petros asked regarding the American Legion bulkhead and Public Works Director Webb noted that it is a City responsibility. Public Works Director Webb addressed water and wastewater projects. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dixon's question, Public Works Director Webb reported that the list presented is a list of projects currently in motion and needing further discussion. He added that the list has been sorted by priority and by ability for possible outside contributions or self-help. City Manager Kiff added that they are in alphabetic order within the various blocks. In response to Council Member Peotter's question, he stated that staff is hoping that Council will express their comments on the various projects and provide guidance and direction. City of Newport Beach Special Meeting/Joint Meeting of the City Council and Finance Committee March 10, 2015 Volume 62 - Page 235 Council Member Petros noted that many of the projects, while they have not been appropriated, have had funds assigned to them through the Facilities Finance Plan (FFP). City Manager Kiff indicated that there are some projects in the list that have not had money assigned to them. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dixon's question, Public Works Director Webb reported that Council typically allows staff to put $5 million of General Funds into the project, as well as $2.7 million in gas tax. Those funds are used to program priority projects. He added that there is a list of special projects for which staff needs additional guidance. Council Member Curry indicated that he did not feel it necessary for Public Works Director Webb to go through all of the details in the projects. Council Member Muldoon noted that this topic is too important to rush and suggested going through part of it today and continuing the rest at a future meeting. Jim Mosher reported on a time before Proposition 13 where it was difficult for councils to give the green light to projects since it was tied to taxation. He stated that the City currently receives money, but Council has little control as to the revenue coming into the City. He believed that Council should have a discussion on how much discretionary money they do have to allot to these various projects. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dixon's questions, Public Works Director Webb noted that the first slides presented are the key projects to which the $5 million should be allocated. Other projects are funded and staff is validating that Council agrees with their scope and size. He noted that other projects are not funded and it is Council's decision whether to fund them or not. Noting the time, it was the consensus of the City Council and the Finance Committee to receive the remainder of the presentation at a future meeting. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None IV. ADJOURNMENT – Adjourned at 6:08 p.m. to an Adjourned Special Meeting/Joint Meeting of the City Council and Finance Committee on March 24, 2015, at 3:30 p.m. The agenda for the Special Meeting (Joint Meeting with the Finance Committee) was posted on the City's website and on the City Hall Electronic Bulletin Board located in the entrance of the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive on March 5, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. Attest: ___________________________________ _____________________ Keith Curry, Chair Date Finance Committee Chair Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 11, 2015 Page 1 of 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINANCE COMMITTEE MAY 11, 2015 MEETING MINUTES I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Newport Coast Conference Room, Bay 2E, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council Member Keith Curry (Chair); Mayor Pro Tem Diane Dixon; Committee Member Bill McCullough (arrived at 6:06 p.m.); Committee Member Larry Tucker; Committee Member John Warner; Committee Member Jack Wu ABSENT: Council Member Tony Petros STAFF PRESENT: City Manager, Dave Kiff; Finance Director, Dan Matusiewicz; Deputy Finance Director, Steve Montano; Administrative Specialist to the Finance Director, Marlene Burns; Public Works Director, Dave Webb; Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Mark Vukojevic; Revenue Manager, Evelyn Tseng; IT Manager, Rob Houston; Deputy City Manager/HR Director, Terri Cassidy; Budget Manager, Susan Giangrande MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Jim Mosher OUTSIDE ENTITY: Megan Nicolai, Orange County Register III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher referenced his written comments and expressed concerns with Council's announcement in January regarding the Finance Committee and a subsequent different announcement a few months later. He spoke regarding the staff auditing itself and opined that City Council should have been asked to make that decision. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Summary: Approval of the February 26, 2015, Finance Committee Minutes and March 24, 2015, Joint City Council/Finance Committee Minutes. Recommended Action: Approve and file. Chair Curry opened public comments. Jim Mosher referenced his written corrections to the minutes. Committee Member Tucker moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Dixon seconded the approval of the February 26, 2015, Finance Committee meeting minutes. The Committee voted 5 ayes and 2 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 11, 2015 Page 2 of 6 absent (Council Member Petros and Committee Member McCullough) to approve the minutes, as corrected by Mr. Jim Mosher. Chair Curry opened public comments. Seeing none, Chair Curry closed public comments. Committee Member Tucker moved, and Committee Member Warner seconded the approval of the March 24, 2015, Joint City Council/Finance Committee meeting minutes. The Committee voted 5 ayes, 1 abstention (Committee Member Wu) and 2 absent (Council Member Petros and Committee Member McCullough) to approve the minutes, as presented. Committee Member McCullough arrived at this juncture (6:06 p.m.). V. CURRENT BUSINESS A. FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Summary: Staff understands that Mayor Pro Tem Dixon wishes to augment the Fiscal Sustainability Plan to ensure that infrastructure funding is made an explicit priority. Maintaining a high- quality natural and physical environment by creating aesthetically pleasing places to live, work, recreate and visit shall remain a key goal of the City. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Finance Committee direct staff to bring the attached changes for City Council approval. Chair Curry introduced the aforementioned item and deferred to Mayor Pro Tem Dixon for a report. Mayor Pro Tem Dixon presented a brief background and provided details of suggested changes. She stressed the importance of balancing fiscal responsibility while investing in capital infrastructure to maintain a good quality of life. Committee Member Tucker commented on the plan regarding increasing income and reducing expenses and suggested adding language regarding enhancing and protecting the City's tax base by investing in quality capital infrastructure improvements that are both long-lasting and fiscally responsible. Chair Curry opened public comments. Jim Mosher suggested that additional language begin with "the City will" and noted there may other things that need to be "cleaned up". He pointed out items that need clarification and wondered if this should be a City policy. Chair Curry closed public comments. Mayor Pro Tem Dixon agreed with Mr. Mosher's and Committee Member Tucker's suggestions. Mayor Pro Tem Dixon moved, and Committee Member Tucker seconded approval of the proposed changes to the Fiscal Sustainability Plan as presented and discussed and to forward it to City Council for their consideration. The motion carried with 6 ayes and 1 absent (Council Member Petros). Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 11, 2015 Page 3 of 6 B. FACILITIES FINANCIAL PLANNING TOOL (FFPT) Summary: Staff has projected the timing, means of financing, and fiscal impacts associated with funding high-priority projects recently approved in concept by the City Council during the recent Proposed FY 2015-16 CIP budget presentation. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Committee directs staff to bring the Facilities Financial Plan for City Council approval. Chair Curry provided a brief background of the item. He added that the subject plan is a tool to determine the affordability of projects. Finance Director Dan Matusiewicz provided a brief overview of the flow of funds including General Fund and Developer contributions that go into the Financial Planning Reserve Fund. He added that in most cases, those projects are funded in cash. He addressed Council direction, identification of priority projects, General Fund contributions to the plan, the Facilities Reserve balance, debt service, and anticipated resources. Chair Curry noted that the plan replaces all of the City's infrastructure and major facilities for the next 80 plus years. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dixon's inquiry, Finance Director Matusiewicz addressed contingency reserves. Discussion followed regarding capital projects not currently on the "radar", Public Works Master Plans and planning for the addition of new facilities. Public Works Director Dave Webb added that Council would direct staff on new facilities. Ensuing discussion followed regarding inclusion of the Uptown Newport development, potential studies for new Police stations, the possibility of sharing facilities with the City of Costa Mesa and other neighboring cities and use of the facilities by residents and non-residents. Chair Curry opened public comments. Jim Mosher stated this is a good plan for facilitating financing projects currently in the plan, but the City anticipates many capital needs in the future that are not in the plan and does not demonstrate how the City will pay for them. He highlighted projects that have been removed (piers and sea walls), expected revenues and inconsistencies in terms of fund totals and details. He referenced staff recommendations and wondered what it is that the Finance Committee is being asked to approve. Finance Director Matusiewicz addressed Council's goal to prioritize projects. City Manager Kiff added that the plan is used to finance projects that are not on other capital master plans and commented on the need for Council approval. He stated that the last amendment to the document was approved by Council and that Council reviews it on an annual basis. Discussion followed regarding budgeted items, sources of funds, projects with specific Council direction, procedure for changes in funding and private contributions. City Manager Kiff reported that the City stays in close contact with Community Development to know exactly how they are progressing with their projects and when funds are expected. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 11, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Ensuing discussion followed regarding changes in the Uptown Newport project and the process for making adjustments to the FFPT. Committee Member Warner moved, and Mayor Pro Tem Dixon seconded to direct staff to bring the Facilities Financial Plan for City Council approval. The motion carried with 6 ayes and 1 absent (Council Member Petros). C. FY 2015-16 BUDGET PRESENTATION Summary: Staff will present an overview of the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2015-16 Proposed Budget. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Committee directs staff to bring the Proposed FY 2015-16 Budget for City Council Approval. Finance Director Matusiewicz introduced the item noting that the fundamentals of a financially- sound budget have been met and that the budget emphasizes the goals and priorities of Council. He addressed the General Fund, proposed operating budget, new capital projects, restricted revenue sources and accumulation of resources. Discussion followed regarding showing comparisons with prior years (i.e. percentage increases) in future budget presentations. Finance Director Matusiewicz reported that the budget is reflective of community goals, policies and priorities and emphasize those qualities that make Newport Beach, exceptional. Discussion followed regarding measuring or determining those items and qualities that residents demand. Finance Director Matusiewicz addressed next steps including the timeline for Council considering and approving the budget. It was suggested including percentages next to dollar amounts within the budget document. Finance Director Matusiewicz addressed the City's top three revenue sources, prior years where revenues decreased, contingency reserves, current debt, CDBG program, assessed valuation growth, bonded debt, transient occupancy tax, comparisons with nearby cities, the TBID, details of guiding principles and related programs as well as total community reinvestment. Discussion followed regarding showing a timeline relative to cash funding on big projects. Finance Director Matusiewicz addressed expenditures by function. Discussion followed regarding providing year-over-year comparisons, organization by department, trends, City payroll by department, providing a summary of employee benefits, employees shared between departments and clarification of "salaries and benefits". Finance Director Matusiewicz addressed General Fund expenditures by type, maintenance and operations, capital, savings for future long-term needs, changes in staffing and salaries and benefits and full- and part-time positions. Discussion followed regarding staffing levels in prior years. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 11, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Finance Director Matusiewicz reported on City Council decisions relative to paying down the City’s unfunded pension liabilities on a faster schedule, rising pension costs, increases in salaries, employee contributions to the pension system, employee contributions to health plans, cafeteria plans, City Council benefits and bargaining units. He addressed components of unfunded liability costs and accelerated pension payments. Brief discussion followed regarding increased employee pension contributions. Finance Director Matusiewicz continued presenting details of the proposed budget including the City's legacy Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) plan. Discussion followed regarding CalPERS. Finance Director Matusiewicz addressed maintenance and operations, the CIP budget, allocation of resources, balancing the needs of residents, developing an equitable repayment strategy, the possibility of creating a neighborhood enhancement fund, conforming to the new actuarial standards, and actions required by the Finance Committee, as well as next steps. Discussion followed regarding considering how surpluses are allocated, the seawall project and the Tidelands Capital Plan. Finance Director Matusiewicz provided details of checklist items for Council consideration, contributions to the Public Arts Fund, the Corona del Mar entryway project, other reductions, restricted revenue sources, and consideration of new initiatives by Council. He addressed increasing parking rates, reduction of mooring fees, commercial fees, residential piers, and considering practical ramifications of reduced fees. Discussion followed regarding incremental fees going into the Harbor Fund, Council's consideration of the budget and the timeline. Finance Director Matusiewicz thanked his staff for their help and offered to respond to questions from the Committee. Discussion followed regarding fund balances, allocation of the Tidelands revenues, the Corona del Mar parking lot, consideration of commercial marinas by Council, benefits provided to Council in the City Charter, providing a summary of full-time, split personnel, increases in general insurance due to significant lawsuits over the past few years, going out to bid for general insurance, overtime, the IT internal service fund charges to the Fire Department, hiring processes for Police Officers and Fire Fighters, benefits for the Community Development Director, building inspection overtime, outsourcing and the possibility of hiring a consultant to do an assessment of what functions can be outsourced, increases in existing contract amounts, the General Services Department, clarification of the Urban Forester position, support services and water utilities generator maintenance. Discussion continued regarding increases in Central Library utilities and the possibility of cutting expenditures. City Manager Kiff reported that it would be helpful for the Committee to make specific recommendations as to which items need special consideration by Council. Discussion followed regarding justifying every line item for every function, identifying and reducing redundancies, finding opportunities for greater efficiencies. City Manager Kiff noted that budget discussions do not end at this time and commented on regular review of the budget going forward. Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 11, 2015 Page 6 of 6 Ensuing discussion continued regarding future scrutiny of high-salaried positions, payment of loans and refinancing, interest schedule, debt service costs, adding explanations to line items in the performance plan and providing details of miscellaneous salaries. Chair Curry opened public comments. Jim Mosher addressed the Finance Committee's role at this time and noted that the budget was available for review on April 30th but the general public did not know it was available until a week later. He expressed concerns regarding adjustments by City staff to the budget after it has been passed. He added that a breakout of information about certain items are not available and suggested including same in future budgets. Chair Curry closed public comments. Mayor Pro Tem Dixon requested increased visibility on program spending and Finance Director Matusiewicz commented on the new ERP system. Discussion followed regarding reviewing future budgets earlier in the cycle and the mid-budget review. City Manager Kiff suggested that each Member list their inquiries and submit them to Finance Director Matusiewicz so that he may respond to the Committee. Committee Member Wu moved and Committee Member Warner seconded to direct staff to send the Proposed FY 2015-16 Budget for City Council for consideration. The motion carried with 5 ayes, 1 abstention (Committee Member McCullough) and 1 absent (Council Member Petros). VI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Curry suggested changing the start time of future Finance Committee meetings to 4:00 p.m. Members of the Committee agreed and Chair Curry reported the issue will be presented to Council for their consideration. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:08 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Finance Committee on June 11, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. Filed with these minutes are copies of all materials distributed at the meeting. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 11, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., in the binder and on the City Hall Electronic Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive. Attest: ___________________________________ _____________________ Keith Curry, Chair Date Finance Committee Chair June 11, 2015, Finance Committee Agenda Comments These comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council Finance Committee agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item III. PUBLIC COMMENTS It is good to see some items of City business being referred to the reconstituted Finance Committee for its review and recommendation. In my view there are many more in which the public and Council would have benefitted from the Finance Committee’s comments. For example, in the month since the Committee’s last meeting the Council has been asked to make decisions about a labor agreement, insurance levels and premiums, many contracts which may or may not have been in the City’s best interest and a sale of City-owned property. The Council also recently heard about a wastewater (sewer) rate study (leading to a recommendation for substantially changed rates including an increased single family residential charge) which the “old” Finance Committee had on its agenda last November, but to the best of my knowledge the old Committee’s recommendations regarding it were not part of the report. Item IV.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 11, 2015, Finance Committee Minutes The following corrections are suggested: Page 4, Item C, paragraph 3: “Finance Director Matusiewicz reported that the budget is reflective of community goals, policies and priorities and emphasize emphasizes those qualities that make Newport Beach, exceptional.” Page 6, final paragraph: “The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 11, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., in …” The date and time quoted is the starting time of the May meeting. My recollection is the agenda was posted well in advance. If the posting came less than 72 hours before the May 11th meeting, then the Finance Committee would have met in violation of the Brown Act. And the following general comments: Based on my recollection of the May 11th meeting, the draft minutes appear to offer a fairly complete record of the topics that were discussed, but if one was not there it is difficult to tell what was said about most of those topics and by whom. Indeed, in one would need to have been present to even know what several of the listed topics signify. As an example, I recall Committee Member Jack Wu had a long series of questions about the budget detail, and Members Warner and McCullough had a smaller number of detailed questions at various points in the budget presentation. I would not know this from the minutes. June 11, 2015, Finance Committee agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 In short, despite their seeming thoroughness, in the absence of a readily available and archived audio recording that that can be easily correlated with the written record, the substantive information available to the public in general about what takes place at these meetings is very limited. Item V.A. MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE I have had very little time to review the material posted, but I am impressed that the depth of the background material provided by staff seems much more thorough than it normally was for the “old” Committee. However, the details of why changes were made to particular line items in the Fee Schedule seem almost wholly lacking. In particular, it is difficult even to tell if on some lines staff is recommending that changes to the Cost Recovery Table in the Municipal Code be adopted in conjunction with the new Fee Schedule, or merely suggesting the existing recovery percentages were not correctly reflected. Item V.B. BUSINESS LICENSE I found a PowerPoint, but may have missed a staff report clarifying for the benefit of the Committee that as Item 21 at its March 24, 2015, meeting, the Council moved “to refer the concept of the business license tax structure to the Finance Committee for review.” As I commented to the Council at the time, the attempt to distinguish between governmental “taxes” and “fees,” which appears prominently in the PowerPoint, seems to be a relatively recent (post-Proposition 13?) concept. When the predecessor of the current Municipal Code chapter was first enacted in 1906 (as one of the new city’s earliest actions), the charge was called neither a tax nor a fee, but simply regarded as a “license” one had to purchase to conduct certain kinds of businesses within the City. As I also attempted to point out to the Council at that time, amendments since 1906 have caused the code defining what was originally a fairly straightforward licensing system to become increasingly complex and increasingly difficult to understand. In particular, what started as applying only to a fairly large number of explicitly named businesses has morphed into a code that at least on its face applies to every imaginable activity in Newport Beach (“for profit or not for profit”) from which it attempts to exempt a small number of named activities in ways that are not always easy to interpret. I would think a clean up of the code is at least as much in need of attention as the amounts charged for the licenses. Finally, on a slightly related topic, it is not obvious to me that all entities contracting with the City government itself have licenses to conduct business in Newport Beach. Item V.C. QUESTION/ANSWERS PERTAINING TO FY 2015/16 ADOPTED BUDGET I have many questions about the recently adopted budget, but as with the Master Fee Schedule lack the time necessary to put them in writing prior to this meeting. NEWPORT BEACH Finance Committee Staff Report CITY OF Agenda Item No. 5A June 11, 2015 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM: Finance Department Steve Montano, Deputy Finance Director (949) 644-3240 or smontano@newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Fee Schedule Update SUMMARY: Local governmental operations are primarily funded from taxes, user fees, fines and grants. “User fee services” are those services that are performed or provided by a government agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. In order to establish fees on the basis of full cost recovery, it is necessary to determine the cost of services. In partnership with the City’s cost allocation plan consultant, staff has reviewed and updated the City-wide cost allocation plan and direct user fee calculations for the Police, Public Works, Fire (EMS services), and Community Development Departments. The recommended modifications are based on a methodology that factors in both direct and indirect costs pursuant to Municipal Code Section 3.36, Council Policy F-4 (Revenue Measures) and Item 11 of the Fiscal Sustainability Plan (FSP). As a general rule, the City may not recover from service users more than the cost incurred by the City to provide the service. If the fees are approved by the City Council, as currently recommended for the four departments, staff projects an overall revenue increase of approximately $681,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff welcomes input and recommendations on the proposed fee schedule. Based on the input and comments from Finance Committee, Finance staff will bring the proposed recommendations to the City Council for formal approval. DISCUSSION: Background The City Council has adopted prudent fiscal policies concerning its investments, reserves, budget administration, competitive contracting, facility replacement planning, and revenue initiatives. The City Charter, Municipal Code and FSP serve as the foundation for the City’s financial planning and management. The Master Fee Schedule Master Fee Schedule June 11, 2015 Page 2 2 is a list of fees imposed by the City that includes, but is not limited to, cost-of-services fees, fine and penalties and other fees that may be mandated by the State of California. Local governmental operations are primarily funded from taxes, user fees, fines and grants. “User fee services” are those services that are performed or provided by a government agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. The starting assumption underlying most fee recommendations is that services benefiting specific individuals – as opposed to the community as a whole – should be paid for by the individual(s) receiving the benefit. However, there are a number of factors that influence cost recovery levels, including elasticity of demand, economic incentives (or disincentives) and the extent to which a particular service benefits the community at large as well as specific individuals or groups. The majority of the fees discussed here are related to cost-of-services. The goal of cost-of-services fees is to recover the appropriate cost of providing those services, as mandated by Municipal Code Section 3.36, Council Policy F-4 (Revenue Measures) and Item 11 of the FSP. As a general rule, the City may not recover from service users more than the cost incurred by the City to provide the service. Municipal Code Section 3.36 mandates the percentage of costs to be recovered from direct user fees. In order to establish fees on the basis of full cost recovery, it is necessary to determine the cost of services. In 2010, the City entered into an agreement with MGT for a phased six-year comprehensive review and update of the City-wide cost allocation plan and direct user fee calculations, by department. MGT uses well-established cost accounting methodologies to calculate our municipal fees on a full cost recovery basis and to this end, contracts with a significant number of municipalities in California. This year, MGT studied the following departments: • Police • Public Works • Fire (EMS services) • Community Development (Building and Planning) Pursuant to the City’s cost recovery policies, staff was tasked with accurately reporting the true cost of providing user fee-related services, and analyzing whether current fees needed to be updated as a result of MGT’s findings. Master Fee Schedule June 11, 2015 Page 3 3 MGT reviewed each studied department’s fee schedule and performed the following tasks for all fee categories: • Calculated the fully burdened (overhead) cost to provide user services (see Attachment “B” for an explanation of how indirect or overhead costs are applied to the calculation of fees for service); • Applied fully burdened labor rates to time requirement estimates; and • Reviewed and cross checked results to ensure data validity. Each studied department then reviewed MGT’s findings for accuracy and reasonableness, and based upon this review, made its fee and subsidy recommendations pursuant to NBMC Section 3.36.030. The recommended modifications to fees are attributable to utilizing a methodology to calculate fees based on increases in direct and indirect costs since the last fee study. Indirect overhead costs are costs that are not directly accountable to the expenses incurred for a user fee service, but are necessary and contribute to the total cost of that service delivery, i.e., managerial administration, utilities, insurance, legal, information technology, payroll, and finance, which are all valid components of the analysis of what it costs the City to provide municipal services. Here is a quick summary of the fee changes: Department # of Fees Going Up # of Fees Going Down or Eliminated # of Fees Combined with Existing Fees # of Fees Staying the Same # of New Fees Total Police 10 9 0 17 0 36 Public Works 18 21 2 7 1 49 Fire (EMS only) 5 1 4 0 0 10 Community Development 66 69 2 53 3 193 Total 99 100 8 77 4 288 Master Fee Schedule June 11, 2015 Page 4 4 For purposes of brevity, not all fee changes are described in detail here; however, the entire fee schedule for each studied department can be found on Attachment “A” and staff will answer questions during the Finance Committee meeting of June 11, 2015. The update recommended by staff will include a 1.89% increase in other non-studied department related fees based upon the change in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) - All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County from April 2013 (the date of the last CPI update) to April 2015. Police Department The Police Department strives to provide a safe and healthy environment for all, free from violence and property loss resulting from criminal acts, and injuries caused by traffic violators. The proposed changes to the fee schedule cover the following areas which have not been updated since 2010: Administration, Support Services, Traffic Division (including Animal Control), and Detective Divisions. Therefore, the results of the fee study reflect an analysis and refinement of the actual cost of service since the study was last performed 5 years ago. Administration The Administration or “Office of the Chief of Police” is responsible for assisting the Chief of Police in the management and administration of the Police Department. This Section works closely with the Community, and encourages residents to partner with the Police Department through programs such as Neighborhood Watch. Out of 5 fees, 3 are decreasing, 1 is eliminated, and another has no proposed changes. Decreases are due to Penal Code restrictions on the amount of recoverable costs for a concealed weapons permit, which are rarely requested within the City. Support Services The Support Services Division provides operational support to all Divisions in the Police Department and includes such activities as emergency dispatch, security alarm response (residential and commercial), jail booking, fingerprinting, and bike licenses. Most fees in the section are not changing, with only 3 increasing minimally to reflect the actual cost of services. Animal Control (within the Traffic Division) Most fees within this category are increasing between $4.00 and $44.00 to reflect the current cost of staff time, equipment, materials, and associated overhead for impounding stray or injured animals and issuing related citations. Detective Division The Detective Division conducts follow-up investigation on all reported crimes and (non- Traffic related) felony and misdemeanor arrests. This cost analysis reflects a decrease Master Fee Schedule June 11, 2015 Page 5 5 of $286.00 for the massage license operator fee. Earlier this year, the City required massage therapists to obtain a California Massage Therapy Council certification. By relying on State regulations to regulate massage therapists, the City has effectively streamlined the massage license operator permitting process. The City now only requires massage establishments to obtain an Operator’s Permit to ensure that the business only uses State certified massage therapists or practitioners and has satisfied all other requirements of the Municipal Code. Public Works Department The Department of Public Works is responsible for managing a comprehensive capital improvement program, including the promotion of a safe and efficient transportation system. Public Works also manages public property through permitted encroachments, ensures the safety of utility company activities, private construction and special events in the public right-of-way, reviews plans for residential and commercial development as they relate to the public right of-way, and oversees activities that protect and improve the harbor and upper bay. The proposed changes to the fee schedule cover the following areas which have not been updated since 2008, with the exception of Harbor Resources, which was updated in 2010: Engineering Transportation and Development and Water Quality. Engineering Transportation and Development The goal of this service area is to promote a safe, efficient and effective multi-modal transportation system for various roadway uses and to protect interests in the public right-of-way. Fees specific to development services within this area provide for plan check services, issuance of encroachment permits, field inspections, and other related services. Certain fees within this category are decreasing between less than $1.00 and $99.00, while others are increasing between $1.00 and $94.00 to reflect the current cost of staff time, equipment, materials, and associated overhead. The Parcel Map Check fee used to be three separate fees: Simple, Moderate and Complex. Staff recommends combining the three fees into one Parcel Map Check fee at $2,440. This represents a $143 increase over the previous Moderate Map Check fee of $2,297 due to the consolidation of fees. Harbor Resources The goal of this service area is to protect and improve the resources of the Newport Harbor and Upper Newport bay for life, recreation and commerce with such core functions as permit issuance and administration for pier, marina, and mooring operations, plan checks for regulatory compliance, and other activities. All but 1 fee in this area are decreasing between $3.00 and $170.00 because staff has been able to streamline the processes and spend less time performing reviews. The Initial Marine Activities Permit is increasing $268.00 because the new applications are more complex, which requires increased staff time. Master Fee Schedule June 11, 2015 Page 6 6 Water Quality Activities within this service area are designed to maintain compliance with state and federal permits and regulations that promote clean water environments for the Newport bay, ocean, shoreline, and other sensitive areas. The only fee in this category, Water Quality Construction Site Inspections, is increasing $46.00 to reflect the current cost of staff time, equipment, materials, and associated overhead. Fire Department Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) Fire department fees were previously updated in October 2013, except for EMS fees. At that time, staff wanted to review the full impacts of a State certified public expenditure program, which introduced a new process for eligible public ambulance providers to apply for supplemental payments for Medi-Cal claims without cost to the State General Fund. Since then, staff determined that participation in the program did not adequately recover costs and staff has instead applied the standard cost recovery methodology to determine the appropriate fees. EMS are those services provided upon medical calls and may include paramedic care, transportation and medical supplies. Previously, the fees were based upon the County Ground Emergency Ambulance Service Rates. This year, MGT studied the fee to provide a much more accurate cost-of-services fee amount. Advanced Life Support (“ALS”) means special services designed to provide definitive pre-hospital emergency medical care and as defined further in Municipal Code Section 5.14.020. Basic Life Support (“BLS”) means emergency first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation procedures as defined in Municipal Code Section 5.14.020. In the past, the cost of providing ALS services was separate from the transportation mileage, oxygen, and expendable materials charges. Staff recommends incorporating those costs into one fee for ALS and one fee for BLS creating one average blended fee for each service. All costs associated with ALS and BLS services are included in the fee, thereby simplifying the billing process. The net effect of this analysis will result in an increase of $410 for ALS patients and $339 for BLS patients. Service Name Average Charges Current Fee Proposed Fee Net Change from Current Fee ALS with Transport $1,244 $1,654 $410 BLS with Transport $1,095 $1,434 $339 Master Fee Schedule June 11, 2015 Page 7 7 It is important to note that Newport Beach residents are also eligible to participate in the Paramedic Subscription Service as a means to minimize cost. In exchange for their membership, participants receive unlimited paramedic service and emergency ambulance transportation within City limits with no out-of-pocket expenses. The City bills their insurance company and accepts the insurance company’s reimbursement as payment in full. The membership covers anyone at the subscribing address. The Paramedic Subscription Service has not been increased since 2003. Fire recommends a one dollar monthly increase, which would bring the total annual fee to $60 per household or business Community Development Department (“CDD”) The department’s program activities range from advanced and current planning to building permit inspection, plan check, code enforcement, real property and asset management, and oversight of the Community Development Block Grant Program. The proposed changes to the fee schedule cover two main areas (Building and Planning) that have not been updated since 2008. Therefore, the results of the fee study reflect an analysis and refinement of the actual cost of service since the study was last performed 7 years ago. Building The Building Division’s core function is to ensure that plans and construction activity adhere to code requirements to promote the quality of life and safety of those that live, work, and visit the City of Newport Beach. Building related fees reflect the cost of services to provide plan reviews; building, electrical, mechanical plumbing, and grading permits and inspections; harbor construction plan reviews; and fees for various other development related services. Certain fees within this category are either decreasing, increasing, or are not changing based largely upon a methodology that uses such factors as the annual time spent on a broad activity (e.g., building inspection) and the total annual cost of the time spent on the category. In certain cases; as with plan review, inspections, and permits; these factors are then applied to an escalating range of costs that increase based on building valuation tables. The use of building valuation (or size of the development project) as an indicator of staff time and effort is a widely accepted cost recovery methodology that is used among municipalities. Planning The Planning Division’s core function is to maintain and apply the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Code, Local Coastal Program, and related policy documents. The goal of this effort is to ensure that uses of properties are appropriate; and that site plan configurations are consistent with the size, scale, and character standards that define the communities within Newport Beach. Certain fees within this category are decreasing Master Fee Schedule June 11, 2015 Page 8 8 between $20.00 and $2,783, while others are increasing between $4.00 and $373.00 to reflect the current cost of staff time, equipment, materials, and associated overhead. Conclusion If the fees are approved by the City Council, as currently recommended, staff projects an overall revenue increase of approximately $681,000. Based on the input and comments from the Finance Committee, Finance staff will bring the proposed recommendations to the City Council for formal approval. Prepared and Submitted by: /s/ Evelyn Tseng _____________________________ Evelyn Tseng Revenue Manager Attachments: A: Summary of User Fee Changes for the Police, Public Works, Fire, and Community Development Departments B: Application of Indirect Costs to the Calculation of Fees for Services At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Po l i c e   Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n Civ i l  Su b p o e n a De p o s i t   N/ A * * * X Deposit  mandated  by  Govt  Code  Sections  68096.1  and  68097.2B  to  be  $275 In i t i a l  Co n c e a l e d  We a p o n s  Pe r m i t St a t u t e N/ A ($ 4 0 0 ) ‐80 . 0 0 % 20 % X Statute  = Penal  Code  26190. Per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A, recover  Maximum  Permitted  by  Law.  Co n c e a l e d  We a p o n  Pe r m i t  Re n e w a l St a t u t e 4 ($ 2 2 5 ) ‐90 . 0 0 % 5% X Statute  = Penal  Code  26190. Per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A, recover  Maximum  Permitted  by  Law.  En v i r o n m e n t a l  Se r v i c e  Bi l l i n g   CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X S e r v i c e  was  absorbed  by  Code  Enforcement  as  of  201 4 Di s t u r b a n c e  Ad v i s o r y  Ca r d  / Re s p o n s e CO S ‐Fe e 53 2 ($ 4 ) ‐6. 5 6 % 10 0 % X Su p p o r t  Se r v i c e s Bik e  Li c e n s e s CO S ‐Fe e 49 5 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 7 % X 1 7 %  recovery  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A Fi n g e r  Pr i n t i n g   CO S ‐Fe e 11 7 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Re p o r t  Co p i e s  ‐   Ar r e s t ,  Cr i m e ,  Tr a f f i c ,  Mi s s i n g  Pe r s o n s CO S ‐Fe e 15 9 4 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Removing  Subsidy  on  Missing  Persons  Reports; recovery  was  at  0% Re p o r t  Co p i e s  ‐   Do m e s t i c  Vio l e n c e CO S ‐Fe e N/ A $ 0 * 0 % X 0% recovery  mandated  by  State  (Family  Code  6228) and  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A Cle a r a n c e  Le t t e r s CO S ‐Fe e 34 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Ja i l  Bo o k i n g  Fe e  ‐   Cit y St a t u t e       CO S ‐Fe e 50 1 $ 8 2 . 3 1 % 1 0 0 % X Statute  = CA  Govt  Code  29550.3 Ve h i c l e  Re p o s s e s s i o n St a t u t e 61 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 5 0 % X Statute  = CA  Govt  Code  41612. Update  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A, to  recover  Maximum  Permitted  by  Law.  Ve h i c l e  Re l e a s e CO S ‐Fe e 13 1 1 $ 4 1 1 . 7 6 % 1 0 0 % X Removing  Subsidy; recovery  was  at  91% So l i c i t o r  Ap p l i c a t i o n  ‐   up  to  10  pe r s o n s CO S ‐Fe e 6 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X So l i c i t o r  Ap p l i c a t i o n  ‐   gr e a t e r  th a n  10  pe r s o n s CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Re g i s t r a n t  ‐   Na r c o t i c s CO S ‐Fe e 78 $ 0 * 0 % X 0 %  Recovery  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A Re g i s t r a n t  ‐   Se x  Of f e n d e r St a t u t e 38 $ 0 * 0 % X 0% recovery  mandated  by  State  (Penal  Code  290.012(d)) and  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A Su b p o e n a  Du c e s  Te c u m St a t u t e 22 2 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 2 1 % X Fee  is  set  by  statue  (CA  Evidence  Code  1563) and  charged  at  a  rate  of  $6  per  quarter  hour. The  average  time  required  is  1.5  hours, current  fee  reflects  average  ($6  x  6  quarter  hours). Per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A, recover  Maximum  Permitted  by  Law Al a r m  Ap p l i c a t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 42 5 ($ 4 ) ‐6. 5 6 % 10 0 % X Al a r m ‐Mo n i t o r  Fe e CO S ‐Fe e 22 9 $ 6 2 . 4 9 % 1 0 0 % X Tr i e n n i a l  Ala r m  Re n e w a l  Fe e  ‐   re s i d e n t i a l CO S ‐Fe e 14 1 9 ($ 2 ) ‐4. 0 8 % 10 0 % X An n u a l  Al a r m  Re n e w a l  Fe e  ‐   co m m e r c i a l CO S ‐Fe e 13 7 9 ($ 2 ) ‐4. 0 8 % 10 0 % X Mo n i t o r i n g  Si g n  ‐   te l e p h o n i c  ala r m  sy s t e m CO S ‐Fe e 2 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Mo n i t o r i n g  De c a l  (p k g  of  10 ) CO S ‐Fe e 2 ($ 1 ) ‐4. 3 5 % 10 0 % X Cit a t i o n  Sig n  Of f   CO S ‐Fe e 62 9 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X An i m a l  Co n t r o l Im p o u n d  Fe e  ‐   do g s ,  ca t s ,  sm a l l  an i m a l s CO S ‐Fe e 33 5 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 3 9 % X Update  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A, to  recover  Maximum  Permitted  by  Contract An n u a l  In s p  ‐   Pe t  Sh o p CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 5 4 . 1 0 % 1 0 0 % X An n u a l  In s p  ‐   Po t  Be l l i e d  Pi g CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 4 4 7 2 . 1 3 % 1 0 0 % X An n u a l  In s p  ‐   Wi l d  An i m a l  Pe r m i t CO S ‐Fe e 5 $ 4 4 7 2 . 1 3 % 1 0 0 % X Ke n n e l  Lic e n s e :  4 ‐9  an i m a l s CO S ‐Fe e 8 $ 4 4 . 4 0 % 1 0 0 % X Ke n n e l  Lic e n s e :  10 ‐29  an i m a l s CO S ‐Fe e 4 $ 4 2 . 6 0 % 1 0 0 % X Ke n n e l  Lic e n s e :  30 ‐59  an i m a l s CO S ‐Fe e 9 $ 6 3 . 2 6 % 1 0 0 % X Ke n n e l  Lic e n s e :  60 +  an i m a l s CO S ‐Fe e 2 $ 7 3 . 2 6 % 1 0 0 % X Pa t r o l Em e r g e n c y  Re s p o n s e  Bi l l i n g   CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X F u l l y  Loaded  Hourly  Rates De t e c t i v e 2n d  Ha n d  / Pa w n  De a l e r  ‐   ta g  ch e c k CO S ‐Fe e 90 0 $ 0 * 0 % X 0 %  recovery  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A Ma s s a g e  Lic e n s e  ‐   Op e r a t o r CO S ‐Fe e N/ A ($ 2 8 6 ) ‐36 . 7 1 % 10 0 % X Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange $1 5   $3 4   $3 8   $9 1   $0   $0   $3 6   $6 1   $2 4 1   $4 9   $4 9   $3 0   $2 3   Pe r  Un i t $2 1 5   $0   $7 7 9   Ho u r l y Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   Se e  No t e $5 0 0   $2 5 0   $6 1   $2   $3 0   $1 0   $0   $3 5   $3 4 7   $1 5   $4 1   $1 2 2   $6 1   $6 1   $9 1   $1 5 4   $1 8 4   $4 7 1   Se e  No t e $1 0 0   $2 5   $5 7   $2   $3 0   $1 0   $0   $3 5   $3 5 5   $1 5   $3 8   $3 8   $9 1   $0   $1 2 7   Ho u r l y Re m o v e d $1 9 0   $2 2 2   $0   $4 9 3   $1 0 5   $1 0 5   $9 5   $1 5 8   $4 7   $3 0   $2 2   $1 5   $4 1   $0   $3 6   $5 7   $2 4 7   $4 7   Pa g e  1 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Pu b l i c  Wo r k s  ‐   En g r  & Tr a n s p  De v e l Pla n  Ch e c k  ‐   Ho u r l y CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 1 0 . 6 6 % 1 0 0 % X Ma p  Ch e c k  Sim p l e CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X O b s o l e t e  fee, merged  into  one  fe e Pa r c e l  Ma p  Ch e c k  Mo d e r a t e CO S ‐Fe e 18 $ 1 4 3 6 . 2 3 % 1 0 0 % X Ma p  Ch e c k  Co m p l e x CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X O b s o l e t e  fee, merged  into  one  fe e En c r o a c h m e n t  Pe r m i t  Wi t h o u t  Ot h e r  De p t / D i v  Re v i e w CO S ‐Fe e 43 5 ($ 5 ) ‐2. 0 7 % 88 % X 88% recovery  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A En c r o a c h m e n t  Pe r m i t  Wi t h  Ot h e r  De p t / D i v  Re v i e w CO S ‐Fe e 14 6 ($ 4 9 ) ‐15 . 3 6 % 57 % X 57% recovery  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A En c r o a c h m e n t  & En g r  Ag r e e m e n t  Pr e p CO S ‐Fe e 53 ($ 9 9 ) ‐11 . 0 0 % 10 0 % X Do c u m e n t  Re c o r d a t i o n  Fe e CO S ‐Fe e 90 ($ 2 1 ) ‐10 . 0 5 % 10 0 % X En g i n e e r i n g  Fie l d  In s p e c t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 19 7 6 $ 8 5 . 1 9 % 1 0 0 % X Ut i l i t i e s  Fi e l d  In s p e c t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 23 8 ($ 8 8 ) ‐44 . 4 4 % 10 0 % X Service  provided  by  MOD  staff   Lo t  Li n e  Ad j u s t m e n t  Ch e c k i n g  Fe e CO S ‐Fe e 17 ($ 3 0 ) ‐2. 7 5 % 10 0 % X Ea s e m e n t ,  Re v i e w s / P r o c e s s i n g CO S ‐Fe e 10 $ 9 4 8 5 . 4 5 % 1 0 0 % X Ce r t i f i c a t e  of  Co m p l i a n c e  Re v i e w CO S ‐Fe e 1 * * * X S e r v i c e  is  provided  and  fee  is  charged  by  Plannin g St r e e t  Ea s e m e n t  an d  Va c a t i o n  Pr o c e s s i n g  Fe e CO S ‐Fe e 5 $ 1 9 1 . 9 3 % 1 0 0 % X Co v e n a n t  Ag r e e m e n t  Re s e a r c h  & Re v i e w  Fe e CO S ‐Fe e 1 ($ 1 5 ) ‐9. 9 3 % 10 0 % X Hourly Tr a f f i c  Su b d i v i s i o n  Pla n  Ch e c k   CO S ‐Fe e 20 0 ($ 1 5 ) ‐9. 9 3 % 10 0 % X Hourly Tr a f f i c  Co n t r o l  Pl a n  Ch e c k  ‐   8. 5  x  11 /  11 x 1 7 CO S ‐Fe e 50 0 $ 9 1 6 . 3 6 % 1 0 0 % X Fee  per  Shee t Tr a f f i c  Co n t r o l  Pl a n  Ch e c k  ‐   24  x  36 CO S ‐Fe e 25 $ 1 0 . 7 2 % 1 0 0 % X Fee  per  Shee t Pla n  Ch e c k  wit h  Pr e ‐Pe r m i t  Re v i e w CO S ‐Fe e 20 ($ 1 5 ) ‐9. 9 3 % 10 0 % X Hourly Tr a c t  Pl a n  Ch e c k :  up  to  $1 0 0 , 0 0 0  im p r o v e m e n t  co s t Ca l c u l a t e d 1* * * X Tr a c t  Pl a n  Ch e c k :  $1 0 0 , 0 0 0  to  $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ca l c u l a t e d 1* * * X Tr a c t  Pl a n  Ch e c k :  ov e r  $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ca l c u l a t e d 1* * * X Oc e a n f r o n t  En c r  An n u a l  Pe r m i t :  0  ‐   5  ft  de p t h Po l i c y 2 $ 4 1 . 1 8 % 1 0 0 % X Council  Policy  L ‐12, Resolution  91 ‐80  & 2005 ‐42 Oc e a n f r o n t  En c r  An n u a l  Pe r m i t :  5  ‐   7. 5  ft  de p t h Po l i c y 2 $ 7 1 . 3 8 % 1 0 0 % X Council  Policy  L ‐12, Resolution  91 ‐80  & 2005 ‐42 Oc e a n f r o n t  En c r  An n u a l  Pe r m i t :  7.5  ‐   10  ft  de p t h Po l i c y 5 $ 9 1 . 3 3 % 1 0 0 % X Council  Policy  L ‐12, Resolution  91 ‐80  & 2005 ‐42 Oc e a n f r o n t  En c r  An n u a l  Pe r m i t :  10  ‐   15  ft  de p t h Po l i c y 5 $ 1 4 1 . 3 8 % 1 0 0 % X Council  Policy  L ‐12, Resolution  91 ‐80  & 2005 ‐42 Di n i n g  En c r  Pe r m i t  ‐   Ap p l CO S ‐Fe e 1 ($ 6 ) ‐1. 6 0 % 10 0 % X Di n i n g  En c r  Pe r m i t  ‐   Tr a n s f e r CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 3 9 2 3 . 6 4 % 1 0 0 % X Di n i n g  En c r  Pe r m i t  ‐   Ou t s i d e  Di n i n g  10 0  sq  ft  or  le s s Po l i c y 1 $ 2 1 . 4 3 % 1 0 0 % X Council   Policy  L ‐21, Resolution  96 ‐26  & 2000 ‐60 Di n i n g  En c r  Pe r m i t  ‐   Ou t s i d e  Di n i n g  ov e r  10 0  sq  ft Po l i c y 1 $ 4 1 . 5 1 % 1 0 0 % X Council   Policy  L ‐21, Resolution  96 ‐26  & 2000 ‐60 Es c r o w  Ac c o u n t  Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 1 ($ 2 0 0 ) ‐67 . 5 7 % 10 0 % X Re c o r d s  of  Su r v e y  Re v i e w CO S ‐Fe e 12 5 * * * X S e r v i c e  is  provided  by  the  County Mo n i t o r i n g  We l l s   CO S ‐Fe e 5 ($ 3 ) ‐0. 6 1 % 10 0 % X Ne w s  Ra c k  Pe r m i t CO S ‐Fe e 17 $ 4 4 7 0 . 9 7 % 1 0 0 % X St r e e t  Cl o s u r e  Pe r m i t  wi t h  En g i n e e r i n g  Re v i e w CO S ‐Fe e 22 5 $ 9 1 6 . 3 6 % 1 0 0 % X St r e e t  Cl o s u r e  Pe r m i t  wi t h o u t  En g i n e e r i n g  Re v i e w CO S ‐Fe e 67 5 ($ 2 9 ) ‐52 . 7 3 % 10 0 % X PW  wanted  to  separate  out  w/ and  w/out  Engineering  Revie w Te m p o r a r y  No  Pa r k i n g  Si g n s P a s s  Th r u 3 0 0 0 ($ 0 . 2 0 ) ‐20 . 0 0 % 10 0 % X Pu b l i c  Wo r k s  ‐   Ha r b o r  Re s o u r c e s Pla n  Re v i e w Ap p e a l  He a r i n g   CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X F u l l y  Loaded  Hourly  Rates Ap p e a l  of  Le a s e / P e r m i t  un d e r  Se c t i o n  17 . 6 0 . 0 8 0 CO S ‐Fe e N/ A $ 0 0 . 0 0 % * X $ 1 0 0  recovery  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A RG P  Dr e d g i n g  Pe r m i t CO S ‐Fe e 25 ($ 5 7 ) ‐3. 2 9 % 10 0 % X Pla n  Ch e c k :  Ne w  Co n s t r u c t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 30 ($ 1 7 0 ) ‐24 . 8 9 % 10 0 % X Pla n  Ch e c k :  Ma i n t e n a n c e CO S ‐Fe e 40 ($ 5 1 ) ‐29 . 8 2 % 10 0 % X Pie r  Pe r m i t  Tr a n s f e r  (c o m m e r c i a l  & no n ‐co m m e r c i a l ) C O S ‐Fe e 50 ($ 5 6 ) ‐19 . 6 5 % 10 0 % X Wa i t  Lis t  Fe e  (B a l b o a  Ya c h t  Ba s i n  & Li v e  Ab o a r d ) CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Liv e  Ab o a r d  Pe r m i t CO S ‐Fe e 22 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Ma r i n e  Ac t i v i t i e s  Pe r m i t :  In i t i a l CO S ‐Fe e 5 $ 2 6 8 6 6 . 1 7 % 1 0 0 % X Ma r i n e  Ac t i v i t i e s  Pe r m i t :  re n e w a l CO S ‐Fe e 15 ($ 3 ) ‐1. 4 9 % 10 0 % X Ee l g r a s s  Su r v e y CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X Still  required  however  has  to  be  done  by  an  outside  consultan t $1 5 1   $3 7 4   $2 , 2 9 7   $3 , 4 8 9   $1 9 8   $1 , 0 8 9   $1 1 0   $2 8 8 / H o u r l y $9 8 3   $2 4 2   $3 1 9   $9 0 0   $5 0 8   $6 7 8   $1 , 0 1 8   $3 7 4   $1 6 5   $2 0 9   $1 5 4   $1 5 1   6. 5 %  of  va l u a t i o n ,   $3 6 6  mi n Ba s e  fe e  of  $8 , 6 8 0   pl u s  5% ,  ov e r  $1 0 0 k   Ba s e  fe e  of  $2 8 , 7 1 0   pl u s  4% ,  ov e r  $4 0 0 k $3 3 9   $1 5 1   $1 5 1   $5 5   $1 3 9   $6 2   $3 1 1   $4 0 5   $2 0 2   $1 4 0   $2 6 5   $2 9 6   $9 6   $4 9 5   $5 5   $5 5   $1   Ho u r l y $1 0 0   $5 9 7   $1 , 7 3 1   $6 8 3   $1 7 1   $2 8 5   $3 5   $3 4 3   $5 1 5   $6 8 7   $1 , 0 3 2   $6 4   $2 6   $0 . 8 0   Re m o v e d $4 9 2   $1 0 6   $3 6 8   $2 0 4   $1 4 2   $2 6 9   $9 6   $2 2 9   Ho u r l y $1 0 0   $1 , 6 7 4   $5 1 3   $1 2 0   $2 3 7   $2 7 0   $8 0 1   $1 8 8   $1 6 2   $1 1 0   $1 , 0 5 9   $2 0 4   Re m o v e d $1 , 0 0 2   $1 3 6   $1 3 6   $6 4   Re m o v e d   $3 5   $3 1 1   $6 7 3   $1 9 9   No  cost  analysis  has  been  prepared  for  these  fees, due  to  no  recent  activity. Recommend  that  fees  remain  unchanged  until  projects  occur  that  can  provide  baseline  time  estimates. $1 4 0   $1 3 6   6. 5 %  of  va l u a t i o n ,   $3 6 6  mi n Ba s e  fe e  of  $8 , 6 8 0   pl u s  5% ,  ov e r  $1 0 0 k   Ba s e  fe e  of  $2 8 , 7 1 0   pl u s  4% ,  ov e r  $4 0 0 k Re m o v e d $1 5 2   Re m o v e d $2 , 4 4 0   Pa g e  2 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   96 97 98 99 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 11 0 11 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 12 2 12 3 12 4 12 5 12 6 12 7 12 8 12 9 13 0 13 1 13 2 13 3 Pu b l i c  Wo r k s  ‐   Wa t e r  Qu a l i t y WQ  Co n s t r u c t i o n  Sit e  In s p e c t i o n s CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 0 $ 4 6 7 6 . 6 7 % 1 0 0 % X Fi r e   Em e r g e n c y  Me d i c a l  Se r v i c e s Ad v a n c e d  Lif e  Su p p o r t CO S ‐Fe e 26 7 0 $ 1 , 0 5 5 2 9 3 . 8 7 % 1 0 0 % X Current  Average  ALS  + Transport  fee  is  $1,244. The  proposed  fee  is  an  increase  of  $410. Update  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A  to  reflect  0% recovery  for  non ‐transports. Ba s i c  Lif e  Su p p o r t   CO S ‐Fe e 25 2 2 $ 9 5 1 3 9 1 . 3 6 % 1 0 0 % X Current  Average  BLS  + Transport  fee  is  $1,095. The  proposed  fee  is  an  increase  of  $339. Update  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A  to  reflect  0% recovery  for  non ‐transports. Em e r g e n c y  Am b u l a n c e  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Ch a r g e CO S ‐Fe e 51 9 2 ($ 4 8 5 ) ‐66 . 9 0 % 10 0 % X Update  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A  to  reflect  100% recovery Em e r g e n c y  Am b u l a n c e  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Mi l e a g e CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X C o s t s  are  included  in  the  ALS  and  BLS  calculation Em e r g e n c y  Am b u l a n c e  Tr a n s p  Ex p e n d a b l e  Me d i c a l CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X C o s t s  are  included  in  the  ALS  and  BLS  calculation Em e r g e n c y  Am b u l a n c e  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Ch a r g e  Ox y g e n CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X C o s t s  are  included  in  the  ALS  and  BLS  calculation Me d i c a l  Su p p l i e s  ‐   Ot h e r  th a n  ex p e n d a b l e CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X C o s t s  are  included  in  the  ALS  and  BLS  calculation Pa r a m e d i c  Su b s c r i p t i o n  Se r v i c e  ‐   An n u a l  Fe e  Re s i d e n t P r o g r a m 51 1 2 $ 1 2 2 5 . 0 0 % * X Pa r a m e d i c  Su b s c r i p t i o n  Sv c  ‐   An n u a l  Bu s i n e s s  10  em p l P r o g r a m 10 5 $ 1 2 2 5 . 0 0 % * X Pa r a m e d i c  Su b s c r i p t i o n  Sv c  ‐   An n u a l  Bu s  ea c h  ad d t l  10   Pr o g r a m 16 9 $ 1 3 1 0 8 . 3 3 % * X Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  ‐   Bu i l d i n g Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n Sp e c i a l  In s p e c t o r  Lic e n s e  Ex a m CO S ‐Fe e 30 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Sp e c i a l  In s p e c t o r  Lic e n s e  Re n e w a l CO S ‐Fe e 90 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Re c  Mg t  ‐   pe r  8.5  x  11  pa g e CO S ‐Fe e 1* * * X Technology  improvements  have  reduce  the  cost  of  service  this  fee  has  been  eliminated Re c  Mg t  ‐   pe r  sh e e t  of  dr a w i n g CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 0 0 . 0 0 % 1 0 0 % X Ap p e a l s  Bo a r d  He a r i n g CO S ‐Fe e 4 ($ 5 , 1 4 7 ) ‐77 . 3 6 % 50 % X U p d a t e  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A  to  reflect  50% Recovery Mo d  to  UB C / A l t  Ma t ' s  & Me t h o d s CO S ‐Fe e 60 $ 6 2 . 2 7 % 1 0 0 % X Au t h o r i z a t i o n  to  Du p l i c a t e  Re c o r d  Dr a w i n g s   CO S ‐Fe e 30 0 ($ 2 0 ) ‐36 . 3 6 % 10 0 % X Ha z a r d o u s  Ma t e r i a l  Di s c l o s u r e CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X N o  staff  time  involved  and  should  be  removed  from  MFS Ac c e s s i b i l i t y  Ha r d s h i p  ‐   Bo a r d  Ra t i f i c a t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 12 * * 1 0 0 % X Fl o o d  Zo n e  De t e r m i n a t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 4 $ 4 2 7 6 . 3 6 % 1 0 0 % X Re a l  Pr o p e r t y CO S ‐Fe e 15 * * 1 0 0 % X Pla n  Re v i e w s Pr e l i m i n a r y  Pl a n  Re v i e w  ‐   Ho u r l y CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 4 6 2 5 . 1 4 % 1 0 0 % X Update  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A  to  reflect  first  2  hours  free  (currently  recovery  is  at  75% per  MC) Pla n  Ch e c k  Ho u r l y  Ra t e CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 7 9 5 3 . 0 2 % 1 0 0 % X Ad d i t i o n a l  Pla n  Re v i e w  an d  Re c h e c k s  in  Ex c e s s  of  2  Re c h e c k s  ‐   Ho u r l y C O S ‐Fe e 1 $ 7 9 5 3 . 0 2 % 1 0 0 % X So l a r  Sy s t e m s  Up  to  an d  in c l u d i n g  3K W CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X Standard  Building  Permit  and  Plan  Check  fee  structure  is  used Pla n  Ch e c k  Ex t e n s i o n CO S ‐Fe e 90 $ 1 1 . 8 2 % 1 0 0 % X De t e r m i n a t i o n  of  Un r e a s o n a b l e  Ha r d s h i p CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 $ 4 3 1 6 . 8 6 % 1 0 0 % X Dr a i n a g e  Pl a n  Re v  fo r  Al t e r a t i o n  to  Dr a i n a g e CO S ‐Fe e 25 $ 3 4 1 3 . 4 4 % 1 0 0 % X WQ M P  In s p e c t i o n s  (C o m m e r c i a l ) CO S ‐Fe e 10 ($ 9 4 4 ) ‐76 . 4 4 % 10 0 % X WQ M P  In s p e c t i o n s  (R e s i d e n t i a l ) CO S ‐Fe e 20 ($ 3 9 4 ) ‐61 . 4 7 % 10 0 % X Wa s t e  Ma n a g e m e n t  Ad m i n  Fe e CO S ‐Fe e 10 5 $ 7 4 3 . 7 5 % 1 0 0 % X $4 8   $4 8   $1 2   $1 5   $6 0   $8 1   Ac t u a l $3 5 9   $2 4 3   $7 2 5   $1 7   $3 2   $9 9   $6 6   $1   $1 , 2 3 5   $6 4 1   $1 4 9   $1 3 8   $5 5   $2 5 5   $2 5 3   $2   $6 , 6 5 3   $2 6 4   $5 5   $1 6   N/ A $5 5   N/ A $1 8 3   $1 4 9   $1 0 6   $1 , 4 1 4   $1 , 1 9 4   $2 4 0   $6 0   $2 5   $2 9 8   $2 8 7   Re m o v e d Re m o v e d Re m o v e d Re m o v e d $6 0   $9 9   $6 6   Re m o v e d $2   $1 , 5 0 6   $2 7 0   $2 9 1   $2 2 9   $2 2 8   $2 2 8   Se e  No t e $5 6   $2 4 7   $2 3   $3 5   Re m o v e d $1 , 0 6 3   $9 7   $2 4 5   Pa g e  3 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   13 4 13 5 13 6 13 7 13 8 13 9 14 0 14 1 14 2 14 3 14 4 14 5 14 6 14 7 14 8 14 9 15 0 15 1 15 2 15 3 15 4 15 5 15 6 15 7 15 8 Pla n  Re v i e w  (a l l ) To t a l   An n u a l 1 $ 3 9 5 , 1 0 1 2 1 . 5 2 % 1 0 0 % X The  fiscal  impact  of  all  fees  listed  under  Plan  Review  (all) will  result  in  a  revenue  increase  of  approximately  $395,101, or  21.52% increase Pla n  Re v i e w  ‐   Bu i l d i n g s  Or  St r u c t u r e s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Re p e t i t i v e  Pla n  Re v i e w   CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X En e r g y  Co m p l i a n c e  Re v i e w C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Dis a b l e d  Ac c e s s  Co m p l i a n c e  Re v i e w C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pl a n  Re v i e w  by  Cit y  St a f f C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pl a n  Re v i e w  of  Co m p l e x  Pr o j e c t s  by  Co n s u l t a n t C O S ‐Fe e 11 7 10 0 % X Ele c t r i c a l  Pla n  Re v i e w C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Pl a n  Re v i e w C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pla n  Re v i e w C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Ex p e d i t e  Pla n  Re v i e w X In s p e c t i o n s Of f  Ho u r s  In s p e c t i o n  Re q u e s t  ‐   Ho u r l y CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 2 1 1 1 . 4 1 % 1 0 0 % X Re ‐In s p e c t i o n  ‐   Ho u r l y CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 5 0 4 0 . 6 5 % 1 0 0 % X Ot h e r  In s p e c t i o n s  ‐   Ho u r l y CO S ‐Fe e 1 $ 5 0 4 0 . 6 5 % 1 0 0 % X Pe r m i t  Fe e s   Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t s  & In s p e c t i o n s  (a l l ) To t a l   An n u a l 1 ($ 5 8 , 6 4 5 ) ‐3. 3 4 % 10 0 % X The  fiscal  impact  of  all  fees  listed  under  Building  Permits  & Inspections  (all) will  result  in  a  revenue  decrease  of  approximately  $58,645, or  3.34% decrease Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   $1 . 0 0  To  $2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   $2 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  To  $2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 9 9   $1 5   $9 6   $1 4   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $2,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $25,000 Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   $2 5 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  To  $5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0   CO S ‐Fe e $ 4 4 8   $1 1   $4 3 3   $1 0   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $25,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $50,000 Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   50 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  To  $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 7 2 6   $7   $7 0 2   $7   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $50,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $100,000 Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   $1 0 0 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  To  $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 1 , 1 1 1   $5   $1 , 0 7 4   $5   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $100,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $500,000 Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   $5 0 0 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  To  $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 3 , 4 0 3   $5   $3 , 2 9 0   $4   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $500,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $1,000,000 Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  to  $5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 5 , 9 7 4   $3   $5 , 7 7 4   $3   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $1,000,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $5,000,000 Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   Ov e r  $5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 1 9 , 6 2 1   $3   $1 8 , 9 6 5   $3   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $5,000,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $5,000  or  fraction  of $9 9   $9 5   $1 , 8 3 5 , 7 9 5   72 %  of  Bu i l d i n g   Pe r m i t  Fe e 25 %  of  Pla n  Re v i e w   Fe e 0. 0 6 %  of  Co n s t r u c t i o n   Co s t 0. 1 %  of  Co n s t r u c t i o n   Co s t 1.7 5  x  Re g u l a r  Pla n   Ch e c k  Fe e s $1 , 7 5 4 , 9 0 5   72 %  of  Gr a d i n g   Pe r m i t  Fe e 12 0 %  of  Co n s u l t a n t   Fe e 72 %  of  To t a l  El e c t r i c a l   Pe r m i t  Fe e   72 %  of  To t a l   Me c h a n i c a l  Pe r m i t   Fe e   72 %  of  To t a l   Pl u m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e   $1 8 4   $1 2 3   $1 2 3   $2 , 2 3 0 , 8 9 6   87 %  of  Bu i l d i n g   Pe r m i t  Fe e 25 %  of  Pla n  Re v i e w   Fe e 87 %  of  To t a l   Me c h a n i c a l  Pe r m i t   Fe e 87 %  of  To t a l   Pl u m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e 1.7 5  x  Re g u l a r  Pla n   Ch e c k  Fe e s $1 , 6 9 6 , 2 6 0   0. 0 7 %  of  Co n s t r u c t i o n   Co s t 0. 1 %  of  Co n s t r u c t i o n   Co s t 87 %  of  Gr a d i n g   Pe r m i t  Fe e 11 8 %  of  Co n s u l t a n t   Fe e 87 %  of  To t a l  Ele c t r i c a l   Pe r m i t  Fe e $2 0 5   $1 7 3   $1 7 3   Pa g e  4 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   15 9 16 0 16 1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 5 16 6 16 7 16 8 16 9 17 0 17 1 17 2 17 3 17 4 17 5 17 6 17 7 17 8 El e c t r i c a l  Pe r m i t s  & In s p e c t i o n s  (a l l ) To t a l   An n u a l 1 ($ 2 7 3 ) ‐0. 1 2 % 10 0 % X The  fiscal  impact  of  all  fees  listed  under  Electrical  Permits  & Inspections  (all) will  result  in  no  change  to  revenue  as  the  decrease  of  $273, or  0.12% decrease  was  too  minimal  to  effect  the  proposed  fees Ele c t r i c a l  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Pe r m i t  Is s u a n c e CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Ele c t r i c a l  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Su p p l e m e n t a l  Pe r m i t s  Is s u a n c e ,   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Pe r m i t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Co m b i n a t i o n  El e c t r i c a l  Pe r m i t  ‐   Re s i d e n t i a l  Co n s t r u c t i o n C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Co m b i n a t i o n  El e c t r i c a l  Pe r m i t  ‐   No n ‐Re s i d e n t i a l   Co n s t r u c t i o n ,  Ho t e l s  & Ap a r t m e n t  Bl d g s  ov e r  2  st o r y C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Ele c t r i c a l  Us e  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ou t l e t s ,  Fi r s t  20 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Ele c t r i c a l  Us e  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ou t l e t s ,  Af t e r  Fir s t   20 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Ele c t r i c a l  Us e  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Li g h t i n g  Fix t u r e s ,   Fir s t  20 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Ele c t r i c a l  Us e  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Li g h t i n g  Fix t u r e ,   Af t e r  20 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Lo w  Vo l t a g e  Sy s t e m  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Lo w  Vo l t a g e  Ou t l e t ,   Fir s t  20 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Lo w  Vo l t a g e  Sy s t e m  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Lo w  Vo l t a g e  Ou t l e t ,   Af t e r  Fi r s t  20 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Lo w  Vo l t a g e  Sy s t e m  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po l e  or  Pla t f o r m ‐ Mo u n t e d  Lig h t i n g  Fi x t u r e s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Lo w  Vo l t a g e  Sy s t e m  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Th e a t r i c a l ‐ty p e   Li g h t i n g  Fi x t u r e s  Or  As s e m b l i e s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Lo w  Vo l t a g e  Sy s t e m  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Re s i d e n t i a l  Ap p l i a n c e   or  Re c e p t a c l e  Ou t l e t  (N e w  Co n s t r u c t i o n ) C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Lo w  Vo l t a g e  Sy s t e m  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  No n ‐Re s i d e n t i a l   Ap p l i a n c e s  an d  Se l f ‐Co n t a i n e d  Fa c t o r y ‐Wi r e d ,  No t   ex c e e d i n g  on e  ho r s e p o w e r   CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Up  to  an d  in c l u d i n g  1 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :     Ov e r  1  an d  No t  Ov e r  10 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :     Ov e r  10  an d  No t  Ov e r  50 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :     Ov e r  50  an d  No t  Ov e r  10 0 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   kil o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :     Ov e r  10 0 C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X $2 3 3 , 7 6 8   $3 5   $9   $1   $1   $1   $1   $1   7%  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t  Fe e 14 %  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t   Fe e $1   $1   $1   $6 4   $9 8   $6   $6   $6   $1 6   $3 3   $2 3 3 , 4 9 5   $1   $1   $1   $1   $1   $3 5   $9   7%  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t  Fe e 14 %  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t   Fe e $1   $1 6   $3 3   $6 4   $9 8   $1   $1   $6   $6   $6   Pa g e  5 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   17 9 18 0 18 1 18 2 18 3 18 4 18 5 18 6 18 7 18 8 18 9 Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  10 0  Fe e t  Or  Fr a c t i o n  Th e r e o f  Of  Bu s  wa y s ,   Fo r  Tr o l l e y  & Pl u g ‐in  Ty p e  Bu s  wa y s .    No t e :  Ad d i t i o n a l   Fe e s  Fo r  Ot h e r  Fi x t u r e s  Co n n e c t e d  To  Th e  Tr o l l e y C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Si g n ,  Ou t l i n e  Li g h t i n g  an d  Ma r q u e e s  su p p l i e d   fr o m  on e  br a n c h  ci r c u i t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   60 0  Vo l t s  or  Le s s  an d  No t  Ov e r  20 0  Am p e r e s  in  Ra t i n g C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   60 0  Vo l t s  or  Le s s  an d  Ov e r  20 0  Am p e r e s  to  1, 0 0 0   Am p e r e s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Ov e r  60 0  Vo l t s  or  Ov e r  1, 0 0 0  Am p e r e s  in  Ra t i n g C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Mi s c e l l a n e o u s  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Co n d u i t s  an d  Co n d u c t o r s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Sp e c i a l  Ev e n t ,  Ea c h  Ge n e r a t o r ,  El e c t r i c a l C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Sp e c i a l  Ev e n t  Lig h t i n g C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Te m p o r a r y  Po w e r  Se r v i c e C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Te m p o r a r y  Se r v i c e  Pe d e s t a l C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Po w e r  Ap p a r a t u s ,  Ra t i n g  in  ho r s e p o w e r ,   ki l o w a t t s ,  ki l o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ,  or  kil o v o l t ‐am p e r e s ‐re a c t i v e :   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Te m p .  Di s t r i b u t i o n  Sy s t e m ,  Li g h t i n g ,  Ou t l e t ,   De c o r a t i v e  Si t e ,  Te m p o r a r y  Re c e p t a c l e s ,  Sw i t c h e s  An d   Li g h t i n g  Ou t l e t s  In  Wh i c h  Cu r r e n t  Is  Co n t r o l l e d  (E x c e p t   Se r v i c e s ,  Fe e d e r s ,  Me t e r s ) C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X $9   $3 5   $4 0   $3 5   $3 5   $1 7   $8 1   $1 6 2   $2 4   $3 5   $9   $9   $3 5   $9   $3 5   $3 5   $1 7   $3 5   $4 0   $8 1   $1 6 2   $2 4   Pa g e  6 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   19 0 19 1 19 2 19 3 19 4 19 5 19 6 19 7 19 8 19 9 20 0 20 1 20 2 20 3 20 4 20 5 20 6 20 7 20 8 20 9 21 0 Me c h a n i c a l  Pe r m i t s  & In s p e c t i o n s  (a l l ) To t a l   An n u a l 1 ($ 1 0 , 9 1 6 ) ‐7. 1 3 % 10 0 % X The  fiscal  impact  of  all  fees  listed  under  Mechanical  Permits  & Inspections  (all) will  result  in  a  revenue  decrease  of  approximately  $10,916, or  7.13% decrease Me c h a n i c a l  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Pe r m i t  Is s u a n c e CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Su p p l e m e n t a l  Pe r m i t s  Is s u a n c e ,   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Pe r m i t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Co m b i n a t i o n  Me c h a n i c a l  Pe r m i t  ‐   Re s i d e n t i a l  Co n s t r u c t i o n C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Co m b i n a t i o n  Me c h a n i c a l  Pe r m i t  ‐   No n ‐Re s i d e n t i a l   Co n s t r u c t i o n ,  Ho t e l s  & Ap a r t m e n t  Bl d g s  ov e r  2  st o r y C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Fo r c e d  Air  or   Gr a v i t y  Ty p e  Fu r n a c e  up  to  an d  in c l u d i n g                                 10 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Fo r c e d  Air  or   Gr a v i t y  Ty p e  Fu r n a c e  ov e r  10 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Fl o o r  Fu r n a c e ,   In c l u d i n g  Ve n t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Su s p e n d e d   He a t e r ,  Re c e s s e d  Wa l l  He a t e r  or  Fl o o r ‐Mo u n t e d  Un i t   He a t e r C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  In s t a l l a t i o n ,   Re l o c a t i o n ,  Re p l a c e m e n t  of  Ap p l i a n c e  Ve n t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Re p a i r ,   Al t e r a t i o n  of  , Ad d ' n  to  He a t i n g  / Co o l i n g  Ap p l i a n c e s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Bo i l e r  or   Co m p r e s s o r  to  an d  In c l u d i n g  3  HP   CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ab s o r p t i o n   Sy s t e m  to  an d  In c l u d i n g  10 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Bo i l e r  or   Co m p r e s s o r  Ov e r  3  HP  to  an d  in c l u d i n g  15  HP C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ab s o r p t i o n   Sy s .  Ov e r  10 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h  & in c l u d i n g  50 0 , 0 0  Bt u / h C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Bo i l e r  or   Co m p r e s s o r  Ov e r  15  HP  to  an d  in c l u d i n g  30  HP C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ab s o r p t i o n   Sy s .  Ov e r  50 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h  & in c l u d i n g  1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Bo i l e r  or   Co m p r e s s o r  Ov e r  30  HP  to  an d  in c l u d i n g  50  HP C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ab s o r p t i o n   Sy s .  Ov e r  1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h    in c l u d i n g  1, 7 5 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Bo i l e r  or   Co m p r e s s o r  ov e r  50  HP C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ab s o r p t i o n   Sy s t e m  Ov e r  1, 7 5 0 , 0 0 0  Bt u / h C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X $1 5 3 , 1 4 5   $3 5   $1 9   $1 9   $9   $1 9   $1 9   $9   5%  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t  Fe e 12 %  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t   Fe e $1 9   $2 3   $7 2   $7 2   $1 2 2   $1 2 2   $1 9   $3 5   $3 5   $4 9   $4 9   $1 8   $2 1   $1 8   $1 8   $9   $1 4 2 , 2 2 9   $3 2   $9   4%  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t  Fe e 11 %  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t   Fe e $4 5   $4 5   $6 6   $6 6   $1 1 3   $1 8   $1 8   $1 8   $3 2   $3 2   $1 1 3   Pa g e  7 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   21 1 21 2 21 3 21 4 21 5 21 6 21 7 21 8 21 9 22 0 22 1 22 2 22 3 22 4 22 5 22 6 22 7 22 8 22 9 23 0 23 1 23 2 23 3 Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ai r  ha n d l i n g   Un i t  To  & In c l u d i n g  10 , 0 0 0  Cu  Ft / M i n  In c l u d i n g  At t a c h e d   Du c t s   CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ai r  Ha n d l i n g   Un i t  Ov e r  10 , 0 0 0  cf m C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ev a p o r a t i v e   Co o l e r  Ot h e r  Th a n  Po r t a b l e  Ty p e C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ve n t i l a t i o n   Fa n  Co n n e c t e d  to  a  Sin g l e  Du c t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ve n t i l a t i o n   Sy s t e m  No t  Co n n e c t e d  to  An y  Ot h e r  Sy s t e m C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ho o d  Se r v e d   by  Me c h  Ex h a u s t ,  In c l u d i n g  Du c t s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Do m e s t i c   Ty p e  In c i n e r a t o r C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Co m m e r c i a l  or   In d u s t r i a l  Ty p e  In c i n e r a t o r C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Me c h a n i c a l  Un i t  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Ot h e r  Eq u i p m e n t  or   Ap p l i a n c e s  No t  Lis t e d  in  Th i s  Co d e ,  Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t s  & In s p e c t i o n s  (a l l ) To t a l   An n u a l 1 ($ 4 , 1 8 3 ) ‐2. 3 3 % 10 0 % X The  fiscal  impact  of  all  fees  listed  under  Plumbing  Permits  & Inspections  (all) will  result  in  some  fees  with  a  decrease  in  revenue  and  others  with  no  change  to  revenue  as  the  decrease  of  $4,183, or  2.33% decrease  was  too  minimal  to  effect  some  of  the  proposed  fees Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Is s u a n c e  of  Pe r m i t CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  ‐   Su p p l e m e n t a l  Pe r m i t s  Is s u a n c e ,   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Pe r m i t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Co m b i n a t i o n  Pl u m b i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   Re s i d e n t i a l  Co n s t r u c t i o n C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Co m b i n a t i o n  Pl u m b i n g  Pe r m i t  ‐   No n ‐Re s i d e n t i a l   Co n s t r u c t i o n ,  Ho t e l s  & Ap a r t m e n t  Bl d g s  ov e r  2  st o r y C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Plu m b i n g   Fix t u r e ,  Tr a p ,  Se t  of  Fix t u r e s  on  On e  Tr a p C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Bu i l d i n g  Se w e r ,   Tr a i l e r  Pa r k  Se w e r C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Pe r  Dr a i n  In  Ra i n w a t e r   Sy s t e m s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ce s s p o o l C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Pr i v a t e  Se w a g e   Dis p o s a l  Sy s t e m C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Wa t e r  He a t e r   an d / o r  Ve n t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  In d u s t r i a l  Wa s t e   Pr e t r e a t m e n t  In t e r c e p t o r ,  Ex c e p t i n g  Ki t c h e n  Ty p e  Gr e a s e   In t e r .  Fu n c t i o n i n g  As  Fix t u r e  Tr a p s    CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Wa t e r  Pip i n g ,   Wa t e r  Tr e a t i n g  Eq u i p m e n t C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Dr a i n a g e  or   Ve n t  Pip i n g  Fix t u r e C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X $1 3   $2 3   $9 8   $1 3   $1 7 9 , 8 3 5   $3 5   $2 3   $1 3   $9   $1 3   $1 3   $1 3   $4 9   $9 8   $1 5   $2 6   $9   10 %  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t   Fe e 10 %  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t   Fe e $1 3   $3 3   $6   $6   $1 2   $1 2   $2 1   $9 1   $1 2   $1 2   $2 1   $1 2   $9   $1 3   $3 2   $1 3   $4 7   $9 6   $1 7 5 , 6 5 2   $3 4   $9   9%  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t  Fe e 9%  of  Bl d g  Pe r m i t  Fe e $1 5   $2 5   $6   $6   Pa g e  8 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   23 4 23 5 23 6 23 7 23 8 23 9 24 0 24 1 24 2 24 3 24 4 24 5 24 6 24 7 24 8 24 9 25 0 25 1 25 2 25 3 25 4 Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  La w n  Sp r i n k l e r   Sy s t e m  on  On e  Me t e r ,  Ba c k f l o w  Pr o t e c t i o n  De v . C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   1  To  5  At m o s p h e r i c  Ty p e   Va c u u m  Br e a k e r s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Wh e n  Mo r e   th a n  5  At m o s p h e r i c  Ty p e  Va c u u m  Br e a k e r s , C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ot h e r  Ba c k f l o w   Pr o t e c t i v e  De v i c e  2  In c h e s  & Sm a l l e r C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ot h e r  Ba c k f l o w   Pr o t e c t i v e  De v i c e  Ov e r  2  In c h e s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ga s  Pip i n g   Sy s t e m  of  On e  to  Fo u r  Ou t l e t s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Plu m b i n g  Pe r m i t  Un i t  Fe e s  ‐   Fe e  Fo r  Ea c h  Ou t l e t  Ga s   Pip i n g  Sy s t e m  of  Fi v e  or  Mo r e  Ou t l e t s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t s  & in s p e c t i o n s  (a l l ) To t a l   An n u a l 1 ($ 7 8 1 ) ‐0. 5 1 % 10 0 % X The  fiscal  impact  of  all  fees  listed  under  Grading  Permits  & Inspections  (all) will  result  in  a  revenue  decrease  of  approximately  $781, or  0.51% decrease Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   0 ‐20 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s   CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   20 1 ‐30 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s   CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   30 1 ‐40 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   40 1 ‐50 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   50 1 ‐60 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   60 1 ‐70 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   70 1 ‐80 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   80 1 ‐90 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   90 1 ‐10 0 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   1, 0 0 1 ‐10 , 0 0 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e $ 1 , 0 6 8   $3 7 4   $1 , 0 6 3   $3 7 2   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  1,000  cubic  yards  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  1,000  CY  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  10,000  CY Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   10 , 0 0 1 ‐10 0 , 0 0 0  Cu b i c  Ya r d s C O S ‐Fe e $ 4 , 4 1 5   $3 7 3   $4 , 3 9 3   $3 7 1   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  10,000  cubic  yards  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  10,000  CY  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  100,000  CY Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e  ‐   Ca l c u l a t e d  ba s e d  on  cu t  or  fil l  wh i c h   ev e r  is  gr e a t e r  ‐   10 0 , 0 0 1  Cu b i c  Ya r d s  or  mo r e C O S ‐Fe e $ 7 , 8 6 5   $3 6 3   $7 , 8 2 5   $3 6 1   10 0 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  100,000  cubic  yards  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  10,000  CY  or  fraction  of Gr a d i n g  Pe r m i t  Fe e s  (b a s e d  on  Si t e  Im p r o v e m e n t s )   Cu r b & G u t t e r ,  Pa v i n g ,  Er o s i o n  Co n t r o l C O S ‐Fe e 10 0 % X $8 0 9   $8 0 4   $8 2 8   $8 2 4   $9 0 8   $9 4 6   $9 8 7   $1 , 0 2 5   $1 , 0 6 4   $1 9   $1 5   $3   $8 4 8   Sa m e  as  Bu i l d i n g   Pe r m i t  Fe e  Ta b l e $1 5   $3 3   $6   $1   $1 5 3 , 3 4 3   $8 6 9   $1 9   $3 2   $6   $8 6 5   $9 0 3   $9 4 1   $9 8 2   $1 , 0 2 0   $1 , 0 5 9   $8 4 4   $1   $1 5 2 , 5 6 2   Sa m e  as  Bu i l d i n g   Pe r m i t  Fe e  Ta b l e $1 5   $3   $1 5   Pa g e  9 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   25 5 25 6 25 7 25 8 25 9 26 0 26 1 26 2 26 3 26 4 26 5 26 6 26 7 26 8 26 9 27 0 27 1 27 2 27 3 27 4 27 5 27 6 27 7 27 8 27 9 28 0 28 1 28 2 28 3 28 4 28 5 28 6 28 7 28 8 28 9 29 0 29 1 29 2 29 3 29 4 29 5 29 6 Ha r b o r  Co n s t r u c t i o n  (a l l ) To t a l   An n u a l 1 $ 1 , 1 5 7 4 . 0 4 % 5 0 % X Update  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A  to  reflect  50% recovery. The  fiscal  impact  of  all  fees  listed  under  Harbor  Construction  (all) will  result  in  a  revenue  increase  of  approximately  $1,157, or  4.04% increase Ha r b o r  Co n s t r u c t i o n  Pl a n  Re v i e w CO S ‐Fe e 50 % X $1 . 0 0  ‐   $2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e 50 % X $2 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  ‐   $8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 9 9   $1 5   $1 0 3   $1 5   50 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $2,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $8,000 $8 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  ‐   $5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 1 9 2   $1 3   $2 0 0   $1 3   50 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $8,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $50,000 $5 0 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  ‐   $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 7 4 8   $7   $7 7 8   $7   50 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $50,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $100,000 $1 0 0 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  To  $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 1 , 1 2 2   $5   $1 , 1 6 7   $6   50 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $100,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $500,000 $5 0 0 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  ‐   $1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 CO S ‐Fe e $ 3 , 4 7 3   $5   $3 , 6 1 3   $5   50 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $500,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $1,000  or  fraction  of, to  and  including  $1,000,000 $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 1 . 0 0  an d  up   CO S ‐Fe e $ 5 , 9 9 5   $3   $6 , 2 3 7   $3   50 % X Base  fee  for  the  first  $1,000,000  + incremental  cost  for  each  addtl  $10,000  or  fraction  of Gr a d i n g  Bo n d  Fe e CO S ‐Fe e 4 * * 1 0 0 % X Dr a i n a g e  Pe r m i t s  fo r  Al t e r a t i o n  to  Dr a i n a g e CO S ‐Fe e 39 $ 3 4 1 3 . 4 4 % 1 0 0 % X Ce r t i f i c a t e s  an d  Re p o r t s Te m p o r a r y  Ce r t i f i c a t e  of  Oc c u p a n c y CO S ‐Fe e 10 0 ($ 6 ) ‐3. 0 3 % 10 0 % X Te m p  Ce r t i f i c a t e  of  Oc c u p a n c y  Re n e w a l CO S ‐Fe e 10 $ 2 5 3 2 . 4 7 % 1 0 0 % X Re s i d e n t i a l  Bu i l d i n g  Re p o r t CO S ‐Fe e 16 3 0 $ 1 2 7 . 5 9 % 1 0 0 % X Re s i d e n t i a l  Bu i l d i n g  Re p o r t  ‐   Du p l e x CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X Re s i d e n t i a l  Bu i l d i n g  Re p o r t  ‐   Mu l t i  Fa m i l y CO S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X C u r r e n t l y :  $192  plus  $11  for  each  unit  over  2 Re s i d e n t i a l  Bl d g  Re p t :  Re ‐In s p e c t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 20 $ 2 7 3 0 . 6 8 % 1 0 0 % X Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  ‐   Pl a n n i n g Am a t e u r  Ra d i o  & Sa t e l l i t e  Dis h  An t e n n a  Pe r m i t s  (n o t  on  Us e r   Fe e  St u d y  Su m m a r y  Sh e e t ) C O S ‐Fe e N/ A * * * X Now  allowed  by  code, if  deviate  from  standard  processed  as  a  Minor  Use  Permit De p o s i t  Ac c o u n t  Sv c s  ‐   Ap p l i c a t i o n  ‐   pe r  ho u r CO S ‐Fe e 16 6 9 $ 2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Am e n d m e n t s  ‐   Ge n e r a l  Pl a n C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Am e n d m e n t s  ‐   Pla n n e d  Co m m u n i t y C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Am e n d m e n t s  ‐   Zo n i n g  Co d e / S p e c i f i c  Pl a n C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Co a s t a l  Re s i d e n t i a l  De v e l o p m e n t  Pe r m i t CO S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Co m p r e h e n s i v e / I n n o v a t i v e  Si g n  Pe r m i t C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X De v e l o p m e n t  Pl a n  ‐   Pl a n n e d  Co m m u n i t y CO S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X De v e l o p m e n t  Ag r e e m e n t  Ad o p t i o n  & An n u a l  Re v i e w C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X En v i r o n m e n t a l  Do c u m e n t s C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X He r i t a g e  Sig n  Re v i e w C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X No n ‐Co n f o r m i n g  Ab a t e m e n t  Pe r i o d  Ex t e n s i o n C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Of f ‐Si t e  Pa r k i n g  Ag r e e m e n t CO S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Pla n n e d  De v e l o p m e n t  Pe r m i t   CO S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Sit e  De v e l o p m e n t  Re v i e w  ‐   Pl a n n i n g  Co m m i s s i o n C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Su b d i v i s i o n  ‐   Te n t a t i v e  Tr a c t  Ma p C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Su b d i v i s i o n s  ‐   Ve s t i n g  Te n t a t i v e  Ma p C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Te l e c o m  Pe r m i t  ‐   Co u n c i l C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Te l e c o m  Pe r m i t  ‐   CD D  Di r e c t o r CO S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Tr a f f i c  St u d y C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Tr a n s f e r  of  De v e l o p m e n t  Ri g h t s C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Us e  Pe r m i t  (C o n d i t i o n a l )  ‐   Pl a n n i n g  Co m m i s s i o n C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X Va r i a n c e C O S ‐Fe e $2 5 1 4 . 7 1 % 1 0 0 % X $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 9 8   $7 7   $1 5 8   $1 9 2   N/ A $2 5 3   $1 7 0   $1 , 4 1 3   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   Se e  No t e $8 8   $9 9   $2 8 , 6 5 3   72 %  of  Pe r m i t  Fe e $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   $1 7 0   Re m o v e d $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 2   $1 0 2   $2 8 7   $1 0 3   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 7 0   Re m o v e d Re m o v e d $1 1 5   $3 9 5   $2 9 , 8 1 0   87 %  of  Ha r b o r   Co n s t r u c t i o n  Pe r m i t   Fe e $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   $1 9 5   Pa g e  10 At t a c h m e n t  A: Su m m a r y  of  Us e r  Fe e  Ch a n g e s  fo r  th e  Po l i c e ,  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s ,  Fir e ,  an d  Co m m u n i t y  De v e l o p m e n t  Departments 1 2 AB C D E G H I J K M N O P Q R S Ty p e An n u a l   Vo l u m e V a r i a n c e %  Va r i a n c e %  Re c o v e r y   In c r e a s i n g    De c r e a s i n g    El i m i n a t e d   No  Change   Combined  w  Existing  Fees   New  Fee   Notes   Re a s o n s  f or  C h ange Pe r  Un i t Re c o m m e n d e d  Fe e Cu r r e n t  Fe e   29 7 29 8 29 9 30 0 30 1 30 2 30 3 30 4 30 5 30 6 30 7 30 8 30 9 31 0 31 1 31 2 31 3 31 4 31 5 31 6 31 7 31 8 Ap p e a l s  to  Cit y  Co u n c i l  & Pl a n n i n g  Co m m i s s i o n CO S ‐Fe e 8 ($ 2 , 7 8 3 ) ‐64 . 8 9 % 50 % X 50% recovery  per  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A Ap p r o v a l  in  co n c e p t CO S ‐Fe e 58 ($ 2 0 ) ‐2. 7 9 % 10 0 % X Ce r t i f i c a t e  of  Co m p l i a n c e  ‐   Su b d i v i s i o n  Co d e CO S ‐Fe e 28 $ 1 8 9 1 8 1 . 7 3 % 1 0 0 % X Co m p l i a n c e  Le t t e r s / M i n o r  Re c o r d s  Re s e a r c h CO S ‐Fe e 30 ($ 2 0 ) ‐5. 5 2 % 10 0 % X Co n d o m i n i u m  Co n v e r s i o n  Pe r m i t CO S ‐Fe e 3 ($ 1 3 8 ) ‐10 . 5 1 % 10 0 % X Di r e c t o r  / St a f f  Ap p r o v a l CO S ‐Fe e 13 $ 1 0 . 1 1 % 1 0 0 % X Ex t e n s i o n  of  Ti m e  ‐   Su b d i v i s i o n  Co d e CO S ‐Fe e N/ A $ 3 3 3 1 . 7 3 % 1 0 0 % X Ex t e n s i o n  of  Ti m e  ‐   ZC  (e x c e p t  Ab a t e  Pe r i o d ) CO S ‐Fe e N/ A $ 3 3 3 1 . 7 3 % 1 0 0 % X Lim i t e d  Te r m  Pe r m i t  ‐   le s s  th a n  90  da y s CO S ‐Fe e 3 $ 1 3 0 3 6 . 3 1 % 1 0 0 % X Lim i t e d  Te r m  Pe r m i t  ‐   mo r e  th a n  90  da y s CO S ‐Fe e 3 $ 1 0 1 6 . 7 2 % 1 0 0 % X Lim i t e d  Te r m  Pe r m i t  ‐   se a s o n a l  sa l e s CO S ‐Fe e 3 $ 1 5 4 2 3 3 . 3 3 % 1 0 0 % X Lo t  Li n e  Ad j u s t m e n t CO S ‐Fe e 8 $ 2 3 4 1 6 . 4 1 % 1 0 0 % X Lo t  Me r g e r CO S ‐Fe e 3 $ 2 5 6 1 8 . 2 3 % 1 0 0 % X Mo d i f i c a t i o n  Pe r m i t CO S ‐Fe e 16 $ 9 0 . 3 7 % 1 0 0 % X Op e r a t o r s  Lic e n s e  Ap p l i c a t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 3 $ 5 8 8 . 3 8 % 1 0 0 % X Op e r a t o r s  Lic e n s e  Ap p e a l CO S ‐Fe e N/ A $ 4 0 . 5 8 % 1 0 0 % X Re a s o n a b l e  Ac c o m m o d a t i o n CO S ‐Fe e 3 $ 0 * 0 % X Update  MC  3.36.030  Exhibit  A  to  reflect  0% recovery  to  be  in  line  with  current  MC  20.52.070  C  2b Si t e  De v e l  Re v i e w  ‐   Zo n i n g  Ad m i n i s t r a t o r CO S ‐Fe e N/ A $ 3 3 1 . 3 8 % 1 0 0 % X Su b d i v i s i o n s  ‐   Pa r c e l  Ma p CO S ‐Fe e 19 ($ 1 , 5 6 2 ) ‐48 . 2 0 % 10 0 % X Us e  Pe r m i t  (M i n o r )  ‐   Zo n i n g  Ad m i n i s t r a t o r CO S ‐Fe e 21 $ 3 7 3 1 8 . 2 2 % 1 0 0 % X Zo n i n g  Pla n  Ch e c k CO S ‐Fe e 13 0 9 $ 2 2 1 7 . 1 9 % 1 0 0 % X $6 6   $4 , 2 8 9   $7 1 6   $0   $2 , 3 8 6   $1 , 5 0 2   $1 , 4 2 6   $1 , 4 0 4   $2 , 4 1 0   $8 9 1   $1 0 4   $1 0 4   $3 5 8   $1 0 4   $3 6 2   $1 , 3 1 3   $3 , 2 4 1   $2 , 0 4 7   $1 2 8   $6 9 2   $6 9 2   $4 8 8   $2 , 4 1 9   $1 , 6 7 9   $2 , 4 2 0   $1 5 0   $1 , 6 6 0   $2 , 4 1 9   $7 5 0   $6 9 6   $1 , 6 0 3   $2 2 0   $1 , 6 6 0   $3 4 2   $1 , 1 7 5   $8 9 2   $1 3 7   $1 3 7   $0   $1 , 5 0 6   $6 9 6   $2 9 3   Pa g e  11 1 Attachment B: Application of Indirect Costs to the Calculation of Fees for Services The purpose of this exhibit is to provide a detailed explanation of the methodology used by the City of Newport Beach to incorporate indirect overhead costs in the development of the municipal fee schedule. The nature of indirect overhead costs will also be described. A Police Department Jail Booking Fee example will be used to facilitate the explanation. The Jail Booking Fee is assessed to recover administrative costs incurred by the Police Department in the process of booking arrestees, in accordance with §29550.3 CGC (California Government Code). The fee includes the Custody Officer’s time to search, fingerprint, classify, assign a cell and process the booking record, and the Community Services Officer’s (CSO) time to search for potential records relating to the arrestee’s wants, warrants, and positive identification. The fee also covers instances when a Police Officer transports an arrestee to the Orange County Jail. The fee is charged to the arrestee upon conviction for any offense related to the arrest. The following steps demonstrate how the Jail Booking Fee is derived. Step 1: Calculate Hourly Staffing Rates and Burdened Factors The first step is to determine the hourly rates of staff providing the jail booking service. Table 1 below provides the hourly salary and benefit rates plus the hourly burden factors for the staff that are responsible for performing this task within the Police Department. Indirect overhead costs or “burdened factors” are costs that are not directly accountable to the expenses incurred for a user fee service, but are necessary and contribute to the total cost of that service delivery, i.e. - managerial administration, utilities, insurance, legal, information technology, payroll, and finance, which are all valid components to the analysis of what it costs the City to provide municipal services. Table 1- Hourly Rates for Salary, Benefit and Overhead Factors The City’s cost allocation plan consultant uses the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 as a guideline to determine the allowable burdened, or indirect, cost elements. OMB A-87 is a document that state and local governments use to identify allowable indirect costs when applying for reimbursement of cost from state or federal programs. Although the calculation of user fee services is not specific to applying for reimbursement from any state or federal program, the underlying methodology of identifying costs is much the same. The relevant sections of OMB A-87 that specify how direct and indirect costs shall be applied to the calculation of the Jail Booking Fee follows below. Salary and Benefits Burdened Factors Hourly Rate Hourly Rate Custody Officer $52.61 +$64.17 =$116.78 Police CSO (incl Part Time (P/T) & Senior (Sr) CSO)$41.18 +$50.23 =$91.41 Police Officer $78.04 +$95.20 =$173.24 Total Burdened Rate 2 Composition of Cost Direct Costs 1. General. Direct costs are those that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost objective. 2. Application. Typical direct costs include: a) Compensation of employees for the time devoted and identified specifically to the performance of the operation. b) Cost of materials acquired, consumed, or expended specifically for the purpose of fulfilling the mission of the operation. c) Equipment and other approved capital expenditures.1 d) Travel expenses incurred specifically to carry out the operation. Using the personnel identified in Table 1, the direct costs to perform a jail booking are found on line 1.1 (total salary and benefits on an hourly basis) in Table 1a below. Table 1a 1 Includes maintenance and/or depreciation expense only, not equipment purchases, which are capitalized over a number of years. Custody Officer Police CSO (incl P/T & Sr CSO) Police Officer 109,421$ 85,647$ 162,318$ 1.Calculate hourly salary & benefits 1.1 Divide annual cost by 2,080 hrs $52.61 $41.18 $78.04 Total Salary and Benefits $52.61 $41.18 $78.04 2.Indirect Overhead 2.1 Compensated Absences 8.46%$4.45 $3.48 $6.60 (vacation, sick leave) 2.2 General Administration 28.9%$15.20 $11.90 $22.55 (supervision, support services) 2.3 Operating Expense 2.63%$1.38 $1.08 $2.05 (training, supplies, insurance) 2.4 Citywide Overhead 82.0%$43.14 $33.76 $63.99 (Finance, City Manager, Fleet Maint) Total Indirect Overhead 121.99%$64.17 $50.23 $95.20 Total Burdened Rate:$116.78 $91.41 $173.24 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates Annual Salary & Benefits: 3 Indirect Costs 1. General. Indirect costs are those: (a) incurred for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, and (b) not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted. The term “indirect costs,” as used herein, applies to costs of this type originating from staff within the Police Department’s Detective, Patrol, and Traffic divisions, their operating expenditures and administration support, as well as those incurred by administrative departments in supplying goods, services, and facilities. The Police Department’s cost of service analysis includes four types of indirect overhead categories or “cost pools” consisting of compensated absences, general administration, operating expenses, and citywide overhead. a) Compensated Absences – The compensated absences cost pool is used to account for employees' time off with pay for vacations and sick days. The City is obligated to pay for these days off and is required by the matching principle to record the expense when the employees are working, since the benefits are a part of the employees' compensation. It is estimated that 176 out of 2,080 total available hours per year per full-time equivalent (FTE) are taken as compensated absences. This translates into an 8.46% burden factor applied to the hourly salary and benefit rate as indicated on line 2.2 in Table 1a above. b) General Administration – The general administration cost pool includes the cost of Police Department Detective, Patrol, and Traffic divisions staff time spent on such activities as budget planning and staffing allocations; public counter and telephone time, meetings, and training and education. The wages of management staff and the workers engaged in administration and support activities are considered an indirect labor cost. It is calculated that 28.9% of the Detective, Patrol, and Traffic divisions’ overall workload is spent on this general administrative function as indicated on line 2.2 in Table 1a above. c) Detective, Patrol, and Traffic Divisions’ Operating Expenditures – The divisions’ operating expenditures cost pool consists largely of Internal Service Fund (ISF) charges to the divisions on a cost reimbursement basis. The City’s internal service funds are used to allocate the cost of providing general liability insurance and workers’ compensation; maintaining and replacing the City’s rolling stock fleet; and the cost of maintaining and replacing the City’s computers, printers, copiers, and telecommunication services. This cost pool also includes other general operating expenses such as publications, supplies, and training. The operating expenditure burden factor of 2.63% as indicated on line 2.3 in Table 1a above is calculated by comparing the total cost of (allowable indirect) operating expenditures to the total (allowable direct) labor pool. d) Citywide Overhead - The Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) distributes the costs of City departments that serve a central service function supporting the Detective, Patrol, and Traffic divisions’ operations. These “Central Service Departments/Divisions” include: City Council, City Clerk, City Manager, Finance & Treasury Financial Planning, Revenue, and Financial Reporting, as well as Human Resources Risk Management. 4 In addition to the departments/divisions listed above, the CAP also distributes the overhead cost of the Police Department’s own Police Chief, Support Services, and Fleet Maintenance divisions to all other Police divisions, including Detective, Patrol, and Traffic. The citywide overhead burden factor of 82% is calculated by comparing the total cost of Detective, Patrol, and Traffic’s share of citywide and department overhead to the divisions’ total (allowable direct) labor pool (see line 2.4 in Table 1a above). Step 2: Calculate Time Spent on the Service The second step is to calculate the time spent on the service. The task and time in minutes estimated to complete the task is captured in Table 2 below. Table 2: Task Description & Time Estimates in minutes Step 3: Calculate the Cost to Provide the Service The third and final step is to calculate the cost to provide the service by converting the total minutes to hours per unit (or staff person). The product of the hourly rate calculation times the time spent yields the cost of providing the service (see Table 3 below). Table 3 – Fee is Product of Times and Rates Summary The purpose of a CAP is to accurately, fairly, and reasonably distribute the City’s central administrative costs to the operating departments in the City. The development of a CAP follows a series of general guidelines and principles, which originate from federal guidelines established in OMB Circular A-87. These principles ensure that allocated costs are necessary and reasonable to the operation of the government. A cost analysis study is almost entirely reliant upon the data provided by the City. Since all study components are interrelated, bad data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to be flawed. To avoid accuracy problems and other quality flaws, the study included a series of quality control measures including reasonableness tests and validation; balance and cross checks; and internal City review. Finally it should be noted that private businesses typically add a layer of profit margin to their cost analysis, public agencies are not allowed to do so. Custody Officer Police CSO (incl P/T & Sr CSO) Police Officer 72.00 Task Description & Time Estimates (in minutes):Upon entry, arrestee searched by transporting officer 60.00 Multiple system check on arrestee's background 20.00 Transportation to Orange County Jail Total Fully Total Cost Total Hours per Burdened to Provide Minutes Unit Hourly Rates the Service Custody Officer 60.00 1.00 $116.78 $116.78 Police CSO (incl P/T & Sr CSO)20.00 0.33 $91.41 $30.47 Police Officer 72.00 1.20 $173.24 $207.89 $355.14 Proposed Fee $355.00 X = June 11, 2015, Finance Committee agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 In short, despite their seeming thoroughness, in the absence of a readily available and archived audio recording that that can be easily correlated with the written record, the substantive information available to the public in general about what takes place at these meetings is very limited. Item V.A. MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE I have had very little time to review the material posted, but I am impressed that the depth of the background material provided by staff seems much more thorough than it normally was for the “old” Committee. However, the details of why changes were made to particular line items in the Fee Schedule seem almost wholly lacking. In particular, it is difficult even to tell if on some lines staff is recommending that changes to the Cost Recovery Table in the Municipal Code be adopted in conjunction with the new Fee Schedule, or merely suggesting the existing recovery percentages were not correctly reflected. Item V.B. BUSINESS LICENSE I found a PowerPoint, but may have missed a staff report clarifying for the benefit of the Committee that as Item 21 at its March 24, 2015, meeting, the Council moved “to refer the concept of the business license tax structure to the Finance Committee for review.” As I commented to the Council at the time, the attempt to distinguish between governmental “taxes” and “fees,” which appears prominently in the PowerPoint, seems to be a relatively recent (post-Proposition 13?) concept. When the predecessor of the current Municipal Code chapter was first enacted in 1906 (as one of the new city’s earliest actions), the charge was called neither a tax nor a fee, but simply regarded as a “license” one had to purchase to conduct certain kinds of businesses within the City. As I also attempted to point out to the Council at that time, amendments since 1906 have caused the code defining what was originally a fairly straightforward licensing system to become increasingly complex and increasingly difficult to understand. In particular, what started as applying only to a fairly large number of explicitly named businesses has morphed into a code that at least on its face applies to every imaginable activity in Newport Beach (“for profit or not for profit”) from which it attempts to exempt a small number of named activities in ways that are not always easy to interpret. I would think a clean up of the code is at least as much in need of attention as the amounts charged for the licenses. Finally, on a slightly related topic, it is not obvious to me that all entities contracting with the City government itself have licenses to conduct business in Newport Beach. Item V.C. QUESTION/ANSWERS PERTAINING TO FY 2015/16 ADOPTED BUDGET I have many questions about the recently adopted budget, but as with the Master Fee Schedule lack the time necessary to put them in writing prior to this meeting. Item No. 5A1Municipal Fee Schedule CorrespondenceJune 11, 2015 Municipal Fee Schedule Update Finance Committee Presentation June 11, 2015 POLICE FIRE-EMS PUBLIC WORKS COMM. DEVELOPMENT Item No. 5A 2 Municipal al Fee Schedule Staff Presentation June 11, 2015 Presentation Overview I.Summary of Proposed Changes II.Background (authority, Council policy, fee administration) III.Fee for Service Methodology IV.Proposed Fees by Department Fee Change Summary – All Departments Studied Department Increasing Decreasing Eliminated No Change Combined w Existing New Fees Total Police 10 8 1 17 0 0 36 Public Works 18 18 3 7 2 1 49 Fire (EMS) 5 1 0 0 4 0 10 Community Development 66 66 3 53 2 3 193 TOTAL 99 93 7 77 8 4 288 PCT OF TOTAL 35% 32% 2% 27% 3% 1% 100% Background Summary of Proposed Fee Schedule In furtherance of Council policy, the fee schedule aligns revenues with the actual (direct and indirect) costs of providing services. Each department gets “studied” every 3-7 years whereby fees are updated to the costs of providing services. Proposed fees are better defined to reflect the nature of work performed. All fees not studied are updated by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Reasons for Change Increasing – due to the increase of any service delivery cost component (e.g. hourly staffing rates, benefits, supplies, materials, indirect costs) Decreasing or Eliminated – due to lower cost of service resulting from gained efficiencies, technological improvements, combined with other existing fees, or service outsourcing Combined with Existing Fees – due to opportunities for simplifying and standardizing the fee schedule Authority Authority – NBMC 3.36.030 mandates 100% cost recovery (except for subsidies identified in the code) Council Policy Directive – Fiscal Sustainability Plan: Establish appropriate cost-recovery targets and adjust fee structure to ensure that the fees continue to meet cost recovery targets.  Council Policy Directive – F-4 Revenue Measures: The City will establish appropriate cost-recovery targets for its fee structure and will annually adjust its fee structure to ensure that the fees continue to meet cost recovery targets. 6 Finance Committee Charge City Council Resolution No. 2015-40 Purpose and Responsibilities: “Recommend for Council approval, and manage an on- going process for measuring and setting goals designed to maximize the City’s revenues consistent with existing taxation structures and inter-governmental funding opportunities, fee generation consistent with market rate charges for City provided services and market rate fees for utilization of City owned assets. Recommend to Council major initiatives to accomplish identified goals.” Tax vs. Fee A monetary imposition by a government on persons or property for the purpose of raising revenue to support the purposes of the government. A tax need not be levied in proportion to a specific benefit to a person or property. Charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred, benefit, or product to the payer that is not provided to those not charged (should not exceed reasonable cost of service). Charge imposed for reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, investigations, etc. Charge imposed for entrance, use, or lease of government property. Fine, penalty, or charge imposed as a result of violation of law. Fee for Service Methodology MGT of America performs cost of service analysis for developing user fees. MGT Scope of Work: Calculate the fully burdened (labor and overhead)cost of providing user fee services; Applied fully burdened labor rates to time requirement estimates and annual workload figures. Calculate the cost of providing the service. Review and cross check results to ensure data validity. Fee Calculation Example (Police Department- Jail Booking Fee Example) Step 1: Calculate Hourly Staffing Rates and Burdened Factors Salary and Benefits Burdened Factors Hourly Rate Hourly Rate Custody Officer $52.61 +$64.17 =$116.78 Police CSO (incl Part Time (P/T) & Senior (Sr) CSO)$41.18 +$50.23 =$91.41 Police Officer $78.04 +$95.20 =$173.24 Total Burdened Rate Fee Calculation Example (Police Department- Jail Booking Fee Example) Step 2: Calculate Time Spent on the Service Custody Officer Police CSO (incl P/T & Sr CSO) Police Officer Transportation to Orange County Jail 72.00 Task Description & Time Estimates (in minutes): Upon entry, arrestee searched by transporting officer 60.00 Multiple system check on arrestee's background 20.00 Fee Calculation Example (Police Department- Jail Booking Fee Example) Step 3: Calculate the Cost to Provide the Service Total Fully Total Cost Total Hours per Burdened to Provide Minutes Unit Hourly Rates the Service Custody Officer 60.00 1.00 $116.78 $116.78 Police CSO (incl P/T & Sr CSO)20.00 0.33 $91.41 $30.47 Police Officer 72.00 1.20 $173.24 $207.89 $355.14 Proposed Fee $355.00 X = Step 4: Review for Accuracy and Reasonableness Police Department Fees Police Department Fees Areas of Study Increasing Decreasing Eliminated No Change Combined w Existing New Fees Total Police General 10 8 1 17 0 0 36 PCT OF TOTAL 28% 22% 3% 47% 0% 0% 100% Fee Areas Under Study: •Administration •Support Services •Animal Control •Patrol •Detective Fees Last Updated: 2010 Services Description: These fees cover costs to provide requested services such as, animal control, voluntary bike licenses, finger printing, copies of reports, animal control, and alarm monitoring Public Works Department Fees Public Works Fees Areas of Study Increasing Decreasing Eliminated No Change Combined w Existing New Fees Total Eng. and Transp. 16 13 2 3 2 1 37 Harbor Resources 1 5 1 4 0 0 11 Water Quality 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 18 18 3 7 2 1 49 PCT OF TOTAL 37% 37% 6% 14% 4% 2% 100% Fee Areas Under Study: •Engineering and Transportation Development •Harbor Resources •Water Quality Fees Last Updated: 2010 Services Description: Plan check services, encroachment permits, field inspections, pier, marina, and mooring permit issuance, and water quality construction site inspection Fire Department Fees Fire Department EMS Fees Areas of Study Increasing Decreasing Eliminated No Change Combined w Existing New Fees Total Emergency Medical Services 5 1 0 0 4 0 10 PCT OF TOTAL 50% 10% 0% 0% 40% 0% 100% Fee Area Under Study: Emergency Medical Services Fees Last Updated: 2008 for EMS , 2003 for Paramedic Subscription Service Services Description: Emergency medical service transportation for both advanced and basic life support, including staff time, equipment, and materials EMS Fee Changes Service Name Average Charges Current Fee Proposed Fee Net Change from Current Fee % Change ALS with Transport $1,244 $1,654 $410 32.96% BLS with Transport $1,095 $1,434 $339 30.96% Community Development Department Fees Community Development Fees Areas of Study Increasing Decreasing Eliminated No Change Combined w Existing New Fees Total Building 30 61 2 52 2 3 150 Planning 36 5 1 1 0 0 43 TOTAL 66 66 3 53 2 3 193 PCT OF TOTAL 34% 34% 2% 27% 1% 2% 100% Fee Areas Under Study: •Building •Planning Services Description: Plan reviews, permits and inspections, and various development related services Fees Last Updated: 2008 Conclusion and Questions Municipal Fee Schedule Update Finance Committee June 11, 2015 Back up slides, if needed… Comparison of ALS/BLS Fees Across Pay Types EMS Fee Comparison Paramedic Subscription Fee Comparison EMS Service Costs Operating Factors Public Sector Private Sector Motives Uses taxing power to raise revenues to provide infrastructure & public services. Unlike taxes, fees based on cost of service. Heightened focus on accountability, compliance, and regulatory disclosure Generate sufficient revenues and profit by selling goods and services. Focus on sustained profitability Operating Environment Revenues may only partially recover cost – may be subsidized for public good Revenues must completely cover cost – or else “out of business” Decision Making Influenced By Political constituencies and navigating competing interest groups Top-down internal decision making without public sanction or approval 31 Public vs. Private Sector Finance 6/4/2015 1 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX PROGRAM NBMC §5.04  FEE raise revenues to benefit the general public may be any amount, but voter approval required for services and facilities, typically  for a specific benefit to a person may not exceed the cost of providing the service, Council approval required TAX Item No. 5B1 Business License Staff Presentation June 11, 2015 6/4/2015 2 Authority Gov’t Code 37101(a)NBMC 5.04.020 No person, either for himself  or any other person, shall  operate any business  specified in this title in the  City without first having,  obtained a license from the  City to do so… The legislative body may  license, for revenue and  regulation, and fix the license  tax upon, every kind of lawful  business transacted in the  city, including shows,  exhibitions, and games. Finance Committee Charter (d)… manage an on‐going process for measuring and  setting goals designed to maximize the City’s revenues  consistent with the existing taxation structures…. 6/4/2015 3 Business tax defrays the cost of  core services Requests for Business License  Information Public City Departments Police, Fire, Code Enforcement, Planning & Zoning Courts & Sheriff Department Tax Agencies: FTB, IRS, BOE Regulatory Agencies Health, Contractor License Board, ABC, Consumer Affairs 6/4/2015 4 Who pays the business license tax? Total  Revenues 6/4/2015 5 Expenditures and Revenues FY 13/14 FY 14/15 Projected Business License Tax $4,156,130 Business License Tax $4,100,000 Administrative Citations $16,175 Administrative Citations $14,000 Total Revenue $4,172,305 Total Revenue $4,114,000 Total Expenditure ‐$176,912 Total Expenditure ‐$168,604 Net Revenue $3,995,392 Net Revenue $3,945,395 General Fund Revenues –tax sources 6/4/2015 6 What do other cities charge? Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Reports CITY EST. TYPE TOTAL REVENUE FY 11/12 Beverly Hills 1914 Gross/Flat $35,700,979 Santa Monica 1886 Gross/Flat $26,325,238 Long Beach 1897 Gross/Flat/Sq Ft $16,111,279 Anaheim 1876 Gross/Flat $5,612,808 Pasadena 1886 Gross/Flat $5,478,863 Newport Beach 1906 Flat/Employee $4,073,725 Carlsbad 1952 Gross $3,668,442 Huntington Beach 1909 Flat $2,303.014 Costa Mesa 1953 Gross $888,976 Who doesn’t have a business license tax? CITY EST OTHER REQUIREMENTS Aliso Viejo 2001 Certificate of Occupancy/Home Occupation Permit Laguna Hills 1991 Certificate of Use and Occupancy Permit Laguna Niguel 1989 Use Permit/Home Occupancy Permit Laguna Woods 1999 None Lake Forest 1991 None.  Zoning confirmation required Mission Viejo 1988 Occupancy Permit Rancho Santa Margarita 2000 Certificate of Use & Occupancy 6/4/2015 7 Recent changes Real Estate Agents‐exempt if works for broker who  pays per agent as employees Artists‐increased the maximum exemption amount  from $800 to $3200 Minors‐increased age from 16 to 18. Removed the  $800 cap and now mirror the IRS (currently $6,200) Penalties‐reduced penalties from 100% to 50% max State Licensed Contractors‐reduced the annual tax  to conform to state law.   What happens if business license tax  becomes a fee? Cost of services May be more expensive for smaller businesses than  bigger businesses General Fund loss of almost $4M 6/4/2015 8 Questions? June 11, 2015, Finance Committee agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 In short, despite their seeming thoroughness, in the absence of a readily available and archived audio recording that that can be easily correlated with the written record, the substantive information available to the public in general about what takes place at these meetings is very limited. Item V.A. MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE I have had very little time to review the material posted, but I am impressed that the depth of the background material provided by staff seems much more thorough than it normally was for the “old” Committee. However, the details of why changes were made to particular line items in the Fee Schedule seem almost wholly lacking. In particular, it is difficult even to tell if on some lines staff is recommending that changes to the Cost Recovery Table in the Municipal Code be adopted in conjunction with the new Fee Schedule, or merely suggesting the existing recovery percentages were not correctly reflected. Item V.B. BUSINESS LICENSE I found a PowerPoint, but may have missed a staff report clarifying for the benefit of the Committee that as Item 21 at its March 24, 2015, meeting, the Council moved “to refer the concept of the business license tax structure to the Finance Committee for review.” As I commented to the Council at the time, the attempt to distinguish between governmental “taxes” and “fees,” which appears prominently in the PowerPoint, seems to be a relatively recent (post-Proposition 13?) concept. When the predecessor of the current Municipal Code chapter was first enacted in 1906 (as one of the new city’s earliest actions), the charge was called neither a tax nor a fee, but simply regarded as a “license” one had to purchase to conduct certain kinds of businesses within the City. As I also attempted to point out to the Council at that time, amendments since 1906 have caused the code defining what was originally a fairly straightforward licensing system to become increasingly complex and increasingly difficult to understand. In particular, what started as applying only to a fairly large number of explicitly named businesses has morphed into a code that at least on its face applies to every imaginable activity in Newport Beach (“for profit or not for profit”) from which it attempts to exempt a small number of named activities in ways that are not always easy to interpret. I would think a clean up of the code is at least as much in need of attention as the amounts charged for the licenses. Finally, on a slightly related topic, it is not obvious to me that all entities contracting with the City government itself have licenses to conduct business in Newport Beach. Item V.C. QUESTION/ANSWERS PERTAINING TO FY 2015/16 ADOPTED BUDGET I have many questions about the recently adopted budget, but as with the Master Fee Schedule lack the time necessary to put them in writing prior to this meeting. BUDGET QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Fiscal Year 2015-16 1 Item No. 5C1Questions/Answers Pertaining to Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Adopted Budget Staff PresentationJune 11, 2015 65% 27% 3% 6% Salaries & Benefits $124.8 (65%) Maintenance & Operation $53.4 (27%) Capital Improvement Projects $5.3 (3%) Transfers $12.4 (6%) 65% 27% 3% 6% Salaries & Benefits $124.8 (65%) Maintenance & Operation $53.4 (27%) Capital Improvement Projects $5.3 (3%) Transfers $12.4 (6%) General Fund Expenditures by Type (Millions) 2 65% 27% 3% 6% Salaries & Benefits $124.8 (65%) Maintenance & Operation $53.4 (27%) Capital Improvement Projects $5.3 (3%) Transfers $12.4 (6%) (Savings for Future Capital Expenditures) MOUs & Benefit Summary newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=296 General Fund Salary & Benefits 3 53% 5% 3% 13% 0% 2% 2% 5% 16% 1% Salaries Overtime Special Pays Health Allowance Other Benefits Workers Comp Compensated Absences PERS Normal Cost PERS UAL Medicare 65% 27% 3% 6% Salaries & Benefits $124.8 (65%) Maintenance & Operation $53.4 (27%) Capital Improvement Projects $5.3 (3%) Transfers $12.4 (6%) 65% 27% 3% 6% Salaries & Benefits $124.8 (65%) Maintenance & Operation $53.4 (27%) Capital Improvement Projects $5.3 (3%) Transfers $12.4 (6%) General Fund Expenditures by Type (Millions) 4 (Savings for Future Capital Expenditures) 48% 24% 9% 7% 6% 4% 1% Contract $25.5 (48%) ISF $12.7 (24%) Supplies $4.7 (9%) Maintenance $3.9 (8%) Utilities $3.4 (6%) Other $2.3 (4%) Capital Outlay $0.7 (1%) $53.4 Million 48% 24% 9% 7% 6% 4% 1% Contract $24.4 (48%) ISF $12.7 (24%) Supplies $4.7 (9%) Maintenance $3.9 (7%) Utilities $3.5 (6%) Other $2.3 (4%) Capital Outlay $0.7 (1%) $53.4 Million Maintenance & Operations By Account Type 5 (Millions) M&O – Contractual Services (Millions) 6 26% 15% 8% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 20% Professional Technical Svcs $6.6 (27%) Residential Refuse Collection $3.9 (16%) Contract Recreation Instruction $2.1 (9%) Contract Median Services $1.6 (7%) Contract Park & Facility Maint $1.2 (5%) Contract Parking Services $1.1 (5%) Contract Janitorial Services $0.8 (3%) Newport Coast Refuse Collectn $0.7 (3%) Contract Helicopter Services $0.7 (3%) Outside Counsel-Specialized Lit $0.6 (2%) Contract Street Sweeping $.05 (2%) Contract Tree Reforestation $0.25 (1%) Contract Fuel Modification $0.25 (1%) AllOther Contracts $5.0 (20%) $24.4 Million The “All Other” category include contracts under $250K, are numerous, and varied including: contract street striping, steam cleaning, beach trash collection, ambulance fees, audit fees, print services, title search exp etc. 26% 15% 8% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 20% Professional Technical Svcs $6.6 (26%) Residential Refuse Collection $3.9 (15%) Contract Recreation Instruction $2.1 (8%) Contract Median Services $1.6 (6%) Contract Park & Facility Maint $1.2 (5%) Contract Parking Services $1.1 (5%) Contract Janitorial Services $0.8 (3%) Newport Coast Refuse Collectn $0.7 (3%) Contract Helicopter Services $0.7 (3%) Outside Counsel-Specialized Lit $0.6 (2%) Contract Street Sweeping $.05 (2%) Contract Tree Reforestation $0.25 (1%) Contract Fuel Modification $0.25 (1%) AllOther Contracts $5.0 (20%) $24.4 Million Professional Technical Services 7 Department Total Service Type Municipal Operations 2,116,341 Tree Trimming, Build Maint, Grafitti Removal, Pest Control Community Development 1,176,050 Contract Building Plan Check Services Police 764,758 Crossing Guards, Shelter Services, 800 MHz Usage Chrg City Manager 748,030 Mgmt Consulting, BID Admin, Public Broadcast Svcs Public Works 575,500 Design, Engineering, GeoTech & Construction Services Recreation & Sr. Services 421,843 Buck Gulley Maint, Build Maint & Janitorial Svcs City Council 241,000 Environmental Consulting, LAFCO Finance 211,960 Bill Printing/Mailing, Economic Consultng, Misc Audit Svcs Fire 128,131 Building Consulting Human Resources 123,770 Mgmt. Consulting & Investigative Services Library 54,085 Arts & Culture Programming City Attorney 40,000 Misc Legal Services City Clerk 25,000 Minutes & Elections TOTAL $6,626,468 Internal Service Fund (ISF) Charges in M&O 8 30% 27% 22% 10% 7% 3% 1% General Insurance Chrg $3.7 (30%) IT Operating Chrg $3.4 (27%) Vehicle Replacemt Chrg $2.8 (22%) Equip Maint Chrg $1.3 (10%) IT Equip Replacement Chrg $0.9 (7%) Parking Equip Replcmnt Chrg $0.4 (3%) RSS Equipment Chrg $0.1 (1%) RSS Infrastructure Chrg $0.03 (0.3%) $12.7 Million (Millions) M&O - Maintenance & Supplies 9 Maintenance Amount % Total Building Maint & Repair 1,039,721 26.4% Equipment Maint & Repair 888,161 22.5% Automotive Serice 879,231 22.3% Maint. & Repair NOC 616,118 15.6% Storm Drain Maint 135,000 3.4% Printer Maint & Supplies 90,545 2.3% Irrigation Maint & Supplies 57,280 1.5% Auto Exterior Maint 55,768 1.4% Damage Maint & Repair 50,000 1.3% Lifeguard Tower Maint 38,166 1.0% Maint. E Coast Hwy 26,897 0.7% Maint - BBSC 25,210 0.6% Generator Maint 11,000 0.3% Traffic Control Maint 10,035 0.3% Beach Maint. 8,000 0.2% Other Maint 13,700 0.3% Total Maintenance 3,944,832 100.0% Supplies Amount % Total Special Dept Supplies 873,853 18.5% Library Materials 625,040 13.2% Software License Renewal 366,343 7.7% Uniform Expense 365,544 7.7% Postage, Freight Expns 312,001 6.6% Office Supplies 264,893 5.6% Non Capital Equipment 255,445 5.4% Janitorial Supplies 206,766 4.4% Asphalt Materials 195,253 4.1% PC Replacement 188,317 4.0% Concrete Materias 150,000 3.2% Protective Gear 139,595 3.0% Auto Parts Exp 92,000 1.9% Shooting Range Supplies 62,800 1.3% S.W.A.T Supplies 51,665 1.1% Other Supplies 580,114 12.3% Total Supplies 4,729,629 100.0% Utilities, Capital, Other & Summary 10 Utilities Amount % Total UTILITIES - ELECTRICITY 1,680,416 48.7% UTILITIES - WATER 1,332,359 38.6% TELECOMM-DATALINES 237,081 6.9% UTILITIES - TELEPHONE 139,200 4.0% UTILITIES - NTRL GAS 59,484 1.7% Total Utilities 3,448,540 100.0% Capital Amount % Total PARK RENOVATIONS 310,000 42.3% EQUIPMENT, N.O.C. 279,369 38.1% COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 65,100 8.9% OFFICE FURNITURE FIXTURES 25,996 3.5% OFFICE EQUIPMENT 23,652 3.2% FITNESS EQUIPMENT 22,298 3.0% SOFTWRE LICENSE NEW 6,500 0.9% Total Capital 732,915 100.0% Other Amount % Total OTHER AGENCY FEES 764,595 32.6% TRAINING 388,983 16.6% PUBLICATIONS & DUES 218,650 9.3% TRAVEL & MEETINGS 187,238 8.0% TRAINING, POST 136,991 5.8% SEWER USE FEE/PROPERTY TAX 126,058 5.4% RECRUITING 121,125 5.2% TUITION REIMBRSMNT 95,500 4.1% TRAINING/EDUCATION 95,000 4.1% CITY GRANTS 65,000 2.8% BANK FEES 36,896 1.6% PLANNING COMMISSION 28,080 1.2% All Other 78,034 3.3% Total Other 2,342,150 100.0% M&O SUMMARY Type Amount % Total Contract $ 25,572,493 48% Internal Svc $ 12,650,009 24% Supplies $ 4,729,629 9% Maintenance $ 3,944,832 7% Utilities $ 3,448,540 6% Other $ 2,342,150 4% Capital Outlay $ 732,915 1% Total $ 53,420,568 100% EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2015-16 11 Expenditures by Program-General Fund 12 PROGRAM/DIVISION DETAIL PG# UNIT # SAL & BEN M&O CAPITAL TOTAL %TOTAL FIRE-OPS 88 2320 22,715,041 4,086,940 144,077 26,946,058 15.1% PD-PATROL 74 1830 22,349,567 1,339,503 0 23,689,070 13.3% PD SUPPORT SERVICES 67 1821 6,598,088 2,585,752 17,694 9,201,534 5.2% PD-DETECTIVE 79 1850 8,322,466 171,452 0 8,493,918 4.8% GS-PARKS 132 3170 1,832,697 5,348,494 313,000 7,494,191 4.2% FIRE-EMS 96 2340 5,855,228 1,328,687 0 7,183,915 4.0% GS-FIELD MAIN 124 3130 3,655,075 2,350,229 14,000 6,019,304 3.4% GS-REFUSE 130 3150 267,267 4,952,595 0 5,219,862 2.9% PD-TRAFFIC 77 1840 4,589,847 442,687 0 5,032,534 2.8% FIRE-LIFEGUARDS 102 2360 3,872,989 870,326 9,550 4,752,865 2.7% BLDG-PLN CHK/PRMITS 115 2930 2,822,847 1,320,933 9,825 4,153,605 2.3% PW-ENGINEERING 153 5100 2,676,982 512,494 3,000 3,192,476 1.8% CENTRAL LIBRARY 168 4050 2,424,591 728,370 0 3,152,961 1.8% GS-OPERATIONS SUPPRT 127 3140 1,173,059 1,776,124 17,550 2,966,733 1.7% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 122 3120 808,991 1,932,680 26,000 2,767,671 1.6% PW-TRANS DEVT 155 5200 1,512,570 1,013,211 1,000 2,526,781 1.4% PLANNING 108 2710 2,128,989 262,269 2,000 2,393,258 1.3% REVENUE ADMIN 59 0641 1,705,904 499,779 0 2,205,683 1.2% SUPPORT SERVICES 158 4010 1,172,954 943,450 2,000 2,118,404 1.2% FIRE-LIFE SAFETY SERVICES 91 2330 1,362,793 652,791 20,976 2,036,560 1.1% POLICE CHIEF 65 1810 1,899,991 98,673 0 1,998,664 1.1% PD-FLEET MAINT 82 1860 258,671 1,711,642 0 1,970,313 1.1% GS-STREET TREES 135 3180 146,156 1,821,372 0 1,967,528 1.1% POLICE IT 70 1822 924,395 914,603 0 1,838,998 1.0% SUPPORT SERVICES 179 4310 1,424,367 298,980 3,050 1,726,397 1.0% CITY MGR 39 0310 1,202,784 507,194 3,854 1,713,832 1.0% FEE BASED CLASSES 183 4330 262,073 1,417,962 3,400 1,683,435 0.9% Expenditures by Program-General Fund 13 PROGRAM/DIVISION DETAIL PG# UNIT # SAL & BEN M&O CAPITAL TOTAL %TOTAL BLDG-INSPECTIONS 113 2920 1,423,363 214,566 30,990 1,668,919 0.9% FINANCIAL PLANNING 57 0620 1,348,327 243,591 0 1,591,918 0.9% HUMAN RESOURCES 46 0410 974,670 606,649 5,634 1,586,953 0.9% CITY ATTY 51 0510 1,363,448 214,200 3,000 1,580,648 0.9% OASIS 203 4410 845,228 702,302 6,641 1,554,171 0.9% PARKING LOTS & METERS 60 0643 0 1,519,989 0 1,519,989 0.9% PW-ADMIN 146 5050 1,122,700 250,499 6,000 1,379,199 0.8% CDD ADMIN 106 2610 1,105,901 236,535 0 1,342,436 0.8% FACILITIES 199 4390 680,346 416,306 5,331 1,101,983 0.6% MARINERS BRANCH 166 4040 873,865 220,229 0 1,094,094 0.6% TRAINING-JR GRDS 99 2353 637,358 429,400 24,663 1,091,421 0.6% REC & SR SVCS ADMIN 177 4510 631,619 456,878 0 1,088,497 0.6% CITY COUNCIL 31 0110 291,982 794,350 1,800 1,088,132 0.6% UTILITIES-ELECTRICAL 136 5300 0 1,073,012 0 1,073,012 0.6% FIRE-ADMIN 85 2310 864,806 186,590 0 1,051,396 0.6% RISK MGMT 48 0420 633,508 391,211 0 1,024,719 0.6% FINANCE ADMIN 55 0610 846,029 146,603 7,500 1,000,132 0.6% FINANCIAL REPORTING 62 0650 753,335 180,101 6,500 939,936 0.5% GS-ADMIN 120 3110 778,881 124,715 2,500 906,096 0.5% MARINA PARK COMM CTR 190 4345 370,320 371,600 17,845 759,765 0.4% NPT COAST COMM CTR 185 4335 332,876 398,539 9,835 741,250 0.4% CITY CLERK 35 0210 580,854 145,969 0 726,823 0.4% CITY ATTY - OUTSIDE LIT 52 0520 0 715,000 0 715,000 0.4% CODE ENFORCEMENT 110 2810 586,280 123,204 4,000 713,484 0.4% SR.SVCS-TRANSPORTATION 207 4420 511,957 185,317 0 697,274 0.4% CITY MGR - PIO 41 0320 353,918 340,983 0 694,901 0.4% ECON DEVT 43 0340 33,102 577,249 0 610,351 0.3% Expenditures by Program – General Fund 14 PROGRAM/DIVISION DETAIL PG# UNIT # SAL & BEN M&O CAPITAL TOTAL %TOTAL WATER QUALITY 151 5070 536,522 71,109 1,500 609,131 0.3% YOUTH AFTER SCHL/CAMP PRG 195 4380 389,476 75,837 0 465,313 0.3% OASIS FITNESS CENTER 205 4415 222,821 235,011 3,329 461,161 0.3% TECHNICAL PROCESSING 160 4015 298,332 63,786 0 362,118 0.2% ADULT SPORTS 181 4320 97,429 248,907 0 346,336 0.2% CDM BRANCH 164 4030 275,005 49,977 0 324,982 0.2% ND GEN FUND 239 9010 150,000 168,896 0 318,896 0.2% TIDEPOOLS 201 4395 241,274 77,373 0 318,647 0.2% AQUATICS 188 4340 193,986 83,888 0 277,874 0.2% BALBOA BRANCH 162 4020 206,993 39,883 0 246,876 0.1% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 94 2335 152,361 33,311 0 185,672 0.1% CULTURAL & ARTS 171 4002 0 137,683 0 137,683 0.1% REAL PROPERTY 116 2970 0 87,527 0 87,527 0.0% YOUTH SPORTS 192 4350 33,954 53,121 0 87,075 0.0% BLDG-ADMIN 111 2910 0 66,140 4,871 71,011 0.0% PRESCHOOL PROG 197 4385 55,287 10,922 0 66,209 0.0% LITERACY 170 4060 43,438 0 0 43,438 0.0% SPECIAL EVENTS 193 4360 0 24,500 0 24,500 0.0% CITY CLRK-ELECTNS 36 0220 0 5,000 0 5,000 0.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND $124,807,933 52,687,650 732,915 $178,228,498 100% $53.4 Million Expenditure Summary by Program Pages 20-21 of the Budget Detail newportbeachca.gov/budget Historical Capital Project Spending? (Millions) 15 Page 185 of the Performance Plan newportbeachca.gov/budget $48 $46 $82 $78 $42 $108 $25 $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Actual 2014 Actual 2015 Carry 2016 New CIP Savings for Future Needs (Millions) This budget also includes nearly $30 million of forced savings that fund long-term liabilities and capital replacement plans. Prefunding/Capital Savings 14-15 15-16 Change Facilities Financial Plan - Transfers $8.0 $8.5 $0.5 Facilities Maintenance Plan - Transfers 0.4 1.5 1.1 Vehicle Replacement Plans – Department Cost 3.3 3.3 - Emergency Communication System - Transfers 1.0 1.0 - Other Equipment (Safety, IT, Parking & Rec) 1.3 1.6 0.3 Workers Compensation – Department Cost 2.8 2.8 - General Liability – Department Cost 3.1 4.1 1.0 Compensated Absences – Department Cost 2.3 2.5 .2 Retiree Insurance (OPEB) – Department Cost 3.4 2.8 -0.6 Total $25.6 $28.1 $2.5 16 46% 19% 11% 9% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% PROPERTY TAXES $87.9 SALES TAX $37.0 TOT REVENUE $20.6 CHARGES FOR SERVICES $17.2 USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY $8.9 OTHER TAXES $8.4 LICENSES AND PERMITS $5.8 FINES, FORFEITURES & PENALTIES $3.8 INTERGOVERNMENTAL $1.8 OTHER REVENUE $0.4 Where Can I Find More Revenue Info? Can I see Parking Revenue? 17 Pages 1-7 of the Budget Detail newportbeachca.gov/budget (Millions) All Revenues by Fund 18 69% 10% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 5% GENERAL FUND $191.7 WATER ENTERPRISE FUND $28.8 TIDELANDS FUND $12.1 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND $6.9 RETIREE MEDICAL FUND $6.0 MEASURE "M" FUND $5.6 EQUIPMENT - ALL OTHER $5.3 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $4.8 WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE $3.0 ALL OTHER FUNDS $13.7 Pages 7-17 of the Budget Detail newportbeachca.gov/budget (Millions) Citizen Transparency Portal 19 Citizen Transparency Portal Coming Soon! •To be implemented by fiscal year end June 30, 2016 •Easy public access via any internet browser dynamic data for year-to-date and historical searches •Transaction details for granular inquiries •Data export options via Excel, PDF or image files Useful Web Links & Contact Info 20 newportbeachca.gov/budget Budget newporteachca.gov/cafr Audited Financials newportbeachca.gov/pers Pension Actuarial Vals . newportbeachca.gov/ffp Facilities Financial Plan (FFP) Remember this one: newportbeachca.gov/financialinfo All of the above Dan Matusiewicz Finance Director danm@newportbeachca.gov 949.644.3123 Questions & Comments City’s budget documents can be accessed at: www.newportbeachca.gov/budget 21 June 11, 2015, Finance Committee agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 In short, despite their seeming thoroughness, in the absence of a readily available and archived audio recording that that can be easily correlated with the written record, the substantive information available to the public in general about what takes place at these meetings is very limited. Item V.A. MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE I have had very little time to review the material posted, but I am impressed that the depth of the background material provided by staff seems much more thorough than it normally was for the “old” Committee. However, the details of why changes were made to particular line items in the Fee Schedule seem almost wholly lacking. In particular, it is difficult even to tell if on some lines staff is recommending that changes to the Cost Recovery Table in the Municipal Code be adopted in conjunction with the new Fee Schedule, or merely suggesting the existing recovery percentages were not correctly reflected. Item V.B. BUSINESS LICENSE I found a PowerPoint, but may have missed a staff report clarifying for the benefit of the Committee that as Item 21 at its March 24, 2015, meeting, the Council moved “to refer the concept of the business license tax structure to the Finance Committee for review.” As I commented to the Council at the time, the attempt to distinguish between governmental “taxes” and “fees,” which appears prominently in the PowerPoint, seems to be a relatively recent (post-Proposition 13?) concept. When the predecessor of the current Municipal Code chapter was first enacted in 1906 (as one of the new city’s earliest actions), the charge was called neither a tax nor a fee, but simply regarded as a “license” one had to purchase to conduct certain kinds of businesses within the City. As I also attempted to point out to the Council at that time, amendments since 1906 have caused the code defining what was originally a fairly straightforward licensing system to become increasingly complex and increasingly difficult to understand. In particular, what started as applying only to a fairly large number of explicitly named businesses has morphed into a code that at least on its face applies to every imaginable activity in Newport Beach (“for profit or not for profit”) from which it attempts to exempt a small number of named activities in ways that are not always easy to interpret. I would think a clean up of the code is at least as much in need of attention as the amounts charged for the licenses. Finally, on a slightly related topic, it is not obvious to me that all entities contracting with the City government itself have licenses to conduct business in Newport Beach. Item V.C. QUESTION/ANSWERS PERTAINING TO FY 2015/16 ADOPTED BUDGET I have many questions about the recently adopted budget, but as with the Master Fee Schedule lack the time necessary to put them in writing prior to this meeting. Item No. 5C2 Questions/Answers Pertaining to Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Adopted Budget CorrespondenceJune 11, 2015 Revised June 4, 2015 Scheduled Date Agenda Title Agenda Description Thursday, February 26, 2015 Audit Review (with Auditor)The City’s external audit firm, White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP will meet with the Finance Committee to discuss the audit findings for the fiscal year ending 6/30/2014. The committee will have an opportunity to discuss any potential areas of concern and the auditors can discuss any changes in accounting standards or disclosures that were relevant for the audit year. ERP Update Staff will provide the Committee with a progress report on the Enterprise Resource Plan project to receive and file. Work Plan Overview Staff will present and seek approval of tentative Finance Committee agenda topics scheduled for the year. Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Joint Finance Committee and City Council Study Session Staff will provide a brief financial update and see a first look of the proposed Capital Improvement Projects. Monday, May 11, 2015 Proposed FY 15-16 Budget Overview Staff will provide an overview of the proposed operating budget. Fiscal Sustainability Plan Review and Discussion of City Fiscal Sustainability Plan. Review of Facilities Financial Planning Tool (FFPT) Annual review of the City's FFPT. Thursday, June 11, 2015 Annual Fee Schedule Update The purpose of this meeting is to review staff’s recommendation to revise the Master Fee Schedule according to CPI and to review the specific changes recommended for departmental related fees. Business License Tax Overview Review and discuss the current business license tax provisions of City of Newport Municipal Code Chapter 5.04.020 . Questions/Answers Pertaining to 2015-16 Adopted Budget The Committee is welcome to continue its questions and comments about the 2015-16 budget as the input will help frame both budget adjustments and planning for the FY 2016-17 budget. Finance Committee Schedule Update Review and comment on proposed revisions to the Finance Committee work plan and schedule. Thursday, July 16, 2015 Reserve Policy Review Annual review of Reserve Policy F-2. Questions/Answers Pertaining to 2015-16 Adopted Budget The Committee is welcome to continue its questions and comments about the 2015-16 budget as the input will help frame both budget adjustments and planning for the FY 2016-17 budget. ERP Update Staff will provide the Committee with a progress report on the Enterprise Resource Plan project to receive and file. Thursday, August 13, 2015 Investment Policy Review Staff will present its annual review of the City's investment policy and seek approval and guidance from the Finance Committee regarding the scope, objectives, and standards that govern the City's investment portfolio. Investment Performance Review Staff and/or one or more investment advisors will describe the performance of the City's investment portfolio. Questions/Answers Pertaining to 2015-16 Adopted Budget The Committee is welcome to continue its questions and comments about the 2015-16 budget as the input will help frame both budget adjustments and planning for the FY 2016-17 budget. ERP Update Staff will provide the Committee with a progress report on the Enterprise Resource Plan project to receive and file. Thursday, September 10, 2015 PERS & OPEB Actuarial Primer Questions/Answers Pertaining to 2015-16 Adopted Budget The Committee is welcome to continue its questions and comments about the 2015-16 budget as the input will help frame both budget adjustments and planning for the FY 2016-17 budget. ERP Update Staff will provide the Committee with a progress report on the Enterprise Resource Plan project to receive and file. Thursday, October 15, 2015 Review of Post Employment Retiree Insurance Actuarial Valuation (AKA OPEB) The City's OPEB actuary will review the City's latest OPEB valuation and liability. Prepare Budget Guidance in preparation for 2016-17 Budget The Committee will prepare preliminary recommendations to the City Manager in preparation of the FY 2016-17 Budget. ERP Update Staff will provide the Committee with a progress report on the Enterprise Resource Plan project to receive and file. Thursday, November 12, 2015 Review of Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Valuation Staff will present the latest actuarial valuation changes to actuarial assumptions, a review of investment returns, the potential impact of future rates, and the results of employee cost sharing. Finalize Budget Guidance in preparation for 2016-17 Budget The Committee will finalize written recommendations to the City Manager in preparation of the FY 2016-17 Budget. ERP Update Staff will provide the Committee with a progress report on the Enterprise Resource Plan project to receive and file. Thursday, December 10, 2015 Year-End Closing Results Staff will present the preliminary year-end closing results for FY 2014-15. ERP Update Staff will provide the Committee with a progress report on the Enterprise Resource Plan project to receive and file. September November December City of Newport Beach Finance Committee Work Plan 2015 February March May June July August October \\cnb\data\Users\ACT\SMontano\Temp\Copy of 2015 FC Workplan 1