The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/08/05MAXIM HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE® HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS1 1 r City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Background and Approach 1 Summary of Results 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3 Background and Purpose 3 Scope of the Study 3 Purpose of the Report 4 About MAXIMUS 4 Report Organization 4 USER FEE CONCEPTS AND PHILOSOPHY 5 General Fee Principles 5 Policy Considerations 6 PROJECT METHODOLOGY 10 General Cost Analysis Approach 10 Structure of the Study 10 The MAXFEE Methodology 11 Alternative Fee Analysis Method - Time Tracking 11 July 8, 2005 i I' I i 1 i e City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS' Continued FINDINGS AND RESULTS 13 General Findings 13 Summary of Results 14 Key Study Assumptions and Issues 14 Community Development Fee Results 18 Public Works / Engineering Fee Results 20 Fire Fee Results 21 Police Fee Results 21 CONCLUSION APPENDICES 23 1. Cost Results for Community Development Fees 2. Cost Results for Public Works Fees 3. Cost Results for Fire Fees 4. Cost Results for Police Fees July 8, 2005 ii 1 r t r 1 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT 'EXECUTIVE SUNIMARI') Background and Approach The City of Hermosa Beach engaged MAXIMUS, Inc. to conduct a detailed cost of services study of user fee activities throughout the City. MAXIMUS employed proven and objective methodologies to calculate the full actual cost of the services, and we used our experience to advise the City regarding the development of reasonable potential fees. City leaders can use this information to make more informed decisions and set fees to meet the fiscal and policy goals and objectives of the City. Through this study, we determined the full cost of services offered by the selected departments for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged. This "full cost," includes all legitimate direct and indirect costs associated with providing each service, including direct support costs from other departments, program, divisional, and department support, plus Citywide overhead. Summary of Results For each Hermosa Beach user fee addressed in this study, MAXIMUS calculated a specific unit cost. In short, we conducted an extraordinarily detailed series of models to "build up" the cost for each fee service. The appendices to this report show the summary results for each fee, but behind these worksheets is tremendous detail to support each and every calculation. By conducting further analysis on the individual fees and their annual volume of activity, we were also able to demonstrate some of the current and potential revenue impacts associated with the fees, including the existing "gaps" between the actual cost of the services and the potential revenues from current fees, which results in a revenue surplus or subsidy. In all departments and divisions studied, MAXIMUS identified an overall current subsidy provided by the City to the fee -payers as a whole, whereby the City was charging less than the full actual cost of providing the services. For specific/individual fees and services, on a unit - by -unit basis, the City overcharged for some and undercharged for others, but the net overall effect was an annual undercharge. The cost analysis conducted by MAXIMUS sought to rectify each instance and identify the actual cost to allow the City to align the fees with the costs more accurately. The results of the MAXIMUS cost analysis demonstrate the full actual cost of providing each of the fee -related services included in the study. By annualizing and combining the results for each fee, we identified the potential revenue impacts of the current fees and all services hypothetically set at the full (100%) cost -recovery levels (full department cost). In addition, we modeled the "recommended" fees to identify the revenue impacts of setting fees at those levels. The following table illustrates these impacts: July 8, 2005 1 of 23 t r 1 1C I t s r 1 1 1 1 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Summary of Actual Cost and Recommended Fee Results Department / Division FULL COST: Annual Cost of All Services (fee related) CURRENT REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Current Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE GROWTH (@ Rec'd Fees) Community Development (Planning & Building) $ 1,081,000 $ 721,000 $ 1,081,000 $ 360,000 Public Works $ 126,000 $ 97,000 $ 126,000 $ ` 29,000 Fire $ 223,000 $ 153,000 $ 223,000 $ 70,000 Police $ 180,000 $ 106,000 $ 180,000 $ 74,000 TOTALS: $ 1,610,000 $ 1,077,000 $ 1,610,000 $ 533,000 (Note: For presentation purposes in this report, these figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.) The remainder of this report details the approach, methodologies, and results of the MAXIMUS study. July 8, 2005 2 of 23 f 1 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT !1NTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND' Background and Purpose The City of Hermosa Beach engaged MAXIMUS, Inc. to conduct a detailed cost of services study of user fee activities throughout the City. In general, "user fee" activities are those services and functions that the City provides to individuals who receive some material benefit from the services. In turn, the City charges specific fees for those services. In the course of this study, MAXIMUS evaluated the actual cost of providing these services, and this report documents our findings. The principal goal of this study was to calculate the full cost of providing the services -- including all direct, indirect, and support costs associated with the programs and individual services. Secondary objectives of the study included: • Structure the fee schedules to accurately reflect the processes and organization of the divisions. • Simplify the fee schedules to make them easier to implement and easier to understand. • Create a nexus between the fees and the cost of services provided. • Ensure that the fees are reasonable and fair. • Ensure that the fees are rational and defensible. • Build a fee structure that recovers the full cost of providing services, in order to ensure continued funding at current service levels. • Compare cost with revenues currently received for these services. • Advise the City regarding potential fee policy issues, strategy, implementation, and appropriate fee levels. Scope of the Study The MAXIMUS study employed our rigorous and proven project approach and analytical methodologies to evaluate the City's costs for user fee -related services. Our study excluded impact fees, utility charges, internal service rates, or other costs and charges not related to development services provided to external customers. We based the analysis on existing data, when available, and on other actual figures and estimates provided by the City. The study focused on the actual cost of services, as the City currently provides them. We did not examine or evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, or value of the City's programs, services, or operations. In short, we studied the cost of the City's services as they are, not as they might be. Not every department and division in the City provides fee -related services. Some departments receive so little revenue from fees or their fees are set by outside sources (state July 8, 2005 3 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT law, etc.) that a review would not be cost-effective. Consequently, the City and MAXIMUS restricted the study to the following departments and functions: • Community Development • Public Works Purpose of the Report • Fire • Police The primary outcome of this study is a voluminous series of worksheets and tables that show the detail of the data inputs, cost calculations, adjustments, time estimates, service volumes, and current fee levels. MAXIMUS provided these worksheets under separate cover to the City of Hermosa Beach. This report summarizesthe results of the study, presents conceptual information regarding fee establishment, and provides a description of the methodologies used to conduct the analysis. As a summary document, this report is not intended to provide all of the detail related to the study process or outcomes. About MAXIMUS The Cost Services Division of MAXIMUS is part of a nationwide consulting firm specializing in cost analysis and revenue enhancement studies for state and local government. The Western Region Office is headquartered in Sacramento, California, with other offices around the West, including Irvine, Denver, and Seattle. Our Western Region has provided services to hundreds of cities and counties in the West. In addition to being the industry's volume leader in cost analysis studies, we have pioneered approaches to fee analysis. Report Organization Following the initial discussion of background information, this report presents the conceptual issues that guide a MAXIMUS fee (cost of service) study and the steps of the MAXIMUS methodologies employed to conduct the study. The summaries of the actual findings follow this discussion, including tables of the actual costs of services and notes relating to some of the specific issues that emerged during the study. July 8, 2005 4 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT IUSER FEE CONCEPTS AND PHILOSOPHY General Fee Principles Local governments are funded from a variety of sources, with the primary sources being taxes, subventions, fees, special charges, fines, and grants. As the traditional provider of basic services, cities are constantly struggling with securing sufficient funding to pay for the services expected/demanded/sought after by the citizenry. Many local government services are "global" in nature (e.g., police and fire protection, open space, etc.). Other services benefit a particular segment of the population, most often providing a direct monetary benefit to the recipient. It is in this latter group that subsidy and recovery issues are brought to the fore. Given the "sum -sufficient" nature of government fmancing, un -recovered monies must be offset by a decrease in available funding for other public good activities. User fee services are those services performed by a governmental agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. The assumption underlying most fee recommendations is that costs of services benefiting individuals --and not society as a whole --should be borne by the individual receiving the benefit. Setting user fees, therefore, is equivalent to establishing prices for services, but making a profit is not an objective for local government in providing services to the general public. It is commonly felt that fees should be established at a level that will recover the cost of providing each service, no more, and no less. It is generally accepted that recovery of costs should be in direct proportion to the individual/specific gain for services. This means that if a developer wants to rezone farm land for a housing development, the city may not want to charge that business a fee less than full cost, since to do otherwise would require a subsidy for other services that must be made up by the general citizenry who doesn't share in the particular benefit. Where new development causes an increase in infrastructure requirements, that increase should logically be shared pro rata with the existing area proportionate to the degree that the new development benefits from the infrastructure. Conversely, a recreation program could logically be heavily subsidized from the general tax base in order to promote. the overall well being of the general public, or to achieve specific socio-economic objectives. Historically, subsidy issues were not stressed, since there were alternative tax avenues available to fund government services. This has not been the case in recent years, which has caused an increasing emphasis on addressing user fee activity subsidy areas. MAXIMUS recognizes, however, that there are circumstances and programs, which probably justify a subsidy (e.g., youth, senior, and disadvantaged recreation programs, certain classifications of code enforcement, library services, etc.). In our experience, no governmental jurisdiction has advocated full cost recovery for all user fee services, and the overall user fee recovery rates have been increasing proportionate to the local government fiscal pressures. July 8, 2005 5 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Policy Considerations In some circumstances a reasonable policy is setting fees at a level that does not reflect the full cost of providing services. This results in the costs of that service being subsidized, or paid for by the City general fund (most likely) while the user receives benefits for which he or she does not fully pay. The following factors underlie such policies: Elasticity of Demand: The price charged for a service can affect the quantity demanded by potential users. In many instances, increasing the price of a service results in fewer units of the service being purchased (i.e., the demand for the service is elastic). For some services, raising the price to the user may not decrease the amount of service purchased because of the importance of the service to individual users (i.e., the demand is inelastic). Whether total revenue goes up, goes down, or stays the same can be correlated to the magnitude of the fee change and resulting shift in volume demanded. Economic Incentives: In some cases it may be desirable to use fees as a means of encouraging or discouraging certain activities. As an example, higher fees for increased water usage may promote better water conservation. Frequently, however, governmental agencies face constitutional or statutory limitations on setting user fees at levels higher than actual cost. Legal Considerations: Overall, the law in California (constitutional and statutory — reference Prop. 4, Prop. 218, and AG Opinion 92-506) prohibits local government from charging more for a service than the actual cost of providing the service. Otherwise, a "user fee" becomes a tax and requires voter approval. Recent legal action in Southern California, which challenges the legitimacy of some fee levels, has brought this issue to the forefront in many local governments. For some program areas, laws or regulations established by external entities further restrict a city's ability to charge certain fees or adjust fee levels. As a result, a city may be limited to pre -established maximum or minimum fees, regardless of the actual cost of the services. In such cases, external factors supercede city flexibility and authority. Subsidy Policy: Subsidies are usually provided for two other purposes, in addition to those arising from economic considerations: • To allow an identified group to participate in services which they might not otherwise be able to afford. For example, providing water bacteria testing for all residential wells promotes public health among July 8, 2005 6 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT fixed income senior residents. If they had to pay full costs for well testing, they might not obtain this service. • To support services whose benefits extend to the community at large, as well as the individual purchasing the service. Many activities, by their nature, provide societal benefits in addition to those received by the direct recipient. Examples of such activities include architectural/ historical design review and appeal fees. With the potential for intentional subsidies in mind, MAXIMUS has developed a service/benefiting agent matrix to help place the subsidy issue in proper context. The matrix with typical fee issues is shown in conceptual form in the following diagram: July 8, 2005 7 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT 2 3 4 Subsidy vs. User Fees Decision-making Diagram Community Primarily the Community with less Individual Benefit Public Primarily the Individual with less Community Benefit Public / Private 100% Taxes Individual Benefit Only Private / Public Primarily Taxes and Some Fees Private Primarily Fees and Some Taxes 100% Fees Examples of services that fall under each category: (1) Police Patrol (2) Fire Suppression (3) Community Resources (4) Land Use, Subdivisions, Building Permits The decision matrix helps to illustrate the analysis used when determining user benefits and fees versus appropriate taxpayer subsidies. The four rows identify different activities that have varying levels of individual and public benefits. Row one lists the characteristics of an activity that is appropriately funded by taxpayers. Row four lists the characteristics of a user fee for which the individual benefiting from the service should pay. The two middle rows show varying levels of cost and benefit between the two extremes. The matrix does not provide absolute answers - there may be many activities that fall in a "gray" area somewhere between rows one and four. Rather, it is intended for use as a tool in identifying relevant economic and public policy issues when considering increases in user fees. July 8, 2005 8 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT MAXIMUS believes that understanding and application of the matrix is important in generating acceptance of fee for service cost recovery levels by the City Council and community/business groups. Through this visual perspective the rationale for cost recovery becomes clear and defensible. The primary goal of the cost of service study is to create an empirical basis to fairly and equitably allocate costs to the users of specific services. Once this is accomplished, the next step is to determine the rate of recovery/subsidy, which is a decision reserved for the legislative body - in this case the City Council. It is they who have to balance fiscal resources and service delivery. In addition to the equity issues notedabove, a cost of service study assures the City that it is in compliance with state law. Legally (state constitution, various statutes, the attorney general), a governmental jurisdiction. cannot charge a fee for a service that is greater than the cost to provide that service. Otherwise, the "fee" becomes a tax, which is subject to electoral action that is beyond the authority of the City Council. By determining the full cost of each fee, the City Council can be comfortable in the fact that if it wishes not to subsidize an activity, the full cost fee it sets will be in compliance with.. the provisions of the law. July 8, 2005 9 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT (PROJECT METHODOLOGY' General Cost Analysis Approach The purpose of a user fee study is to determine the full cost of services offered by the agency for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged. The full cost can usually be compared to current revenues to determine the existing amount of subsidy (or occasionally, overcharge). With this knowledge a City can make informed decisions concerning appropriate fee adjustments. MAXIMUS is able to assist in understanding fee -related issues and trends. However, in the final analysis, the actual decision to increase or decrease fees (or what to include in a fee) is a local decision. The underlying rationale to charge full cost for user fees is simply this: the City is providing a distinct service or product to a business or individual who is gaining a monetary, emotional, or recreational benefit. Equity says that others who do not participate in that benefit should not subsidize individuals or businesses that benefit directly from City services. For example, why should any resident of the City contribute toward the remodel of another resident's home, or toward a commercial development project which economically benefits a private developer? Our methodology for developing fee-for-service calculations is to create a standard cost model for each current and potential fee. We believe that a service qualifies for the "fee" designation when the activity benefits a specific individual or group, as opposed to the public at large. For example, a development activity clearly fits the definition - whether the beneficiary makes a near-term profit or not - as opposed to police patrol or parkland maintenance, which benefit the community as a whole. The costs we develop are "full cost," since they include all direct and indirect costs, including direct support costs from other departments. The indirect costs include program, divisional, and department support, plus citywide overhead (e.g., City manager, finance, attorney, building maintenance, etc.). Our final report includes our determination of the full cost of each service. Structure of the Study MAXIMUS used one methodology for this study: MAXFEE. We selected this methodology for all functions studied based on the following: • The level of detail needed/desired by the department/function • The types of fees charged • Availability and specificity of data to be entered into our models • Our experience relating to the adaptability of a model to the function July 8, 2005 10 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT • The amount of time and effort available from the departments/functions The MAXFEE Methodology For all departments included in the study, MAXIMUS used the standard methodology that we have employed for hundreds of similar studies: MAXFEE. This method is a unit cost "build- up" approach that calculates each cost component for individual fees/services—with the assistance of specially designed software. Initially, MAXIMUS worked with City personnel to develop time estimates for each fee-based service. Based upon these estimates, we calculated the direct cost (salaries and benefits) attributed to each fee. With this information we allocated the cost of services and supplies, as well as other related expenses. We also distributed the appropriate amount of Citywide and departmental overhead. As a crosscheck, we ensured that 100% of each employee's time is accounted for in the model. We also identified existing "cross costs," (or support from other departments), and incorporated it into the analysis. The end result of this analysis is a list of full actual costs for individual services. By multiplying the actual cost for each service by the annual volume of the service, we were able to identify potential annual revenue. By multiplying the same volume by the current fees, we were able to calculate comparable revenue under the current fees. The difference between the two annual revenues represents the "gap" or existing surplus/subsidy caused by under or overcharges within individual fees. Alternative Fee Analysis Method - Time Tracking Local government fee analysis is an imperfect endeavor, as it normally seeks to standardize charges for services that may have variable inputs, processes, and outputs. Admittedly; the most accurate and comprehensive approach to determine fees is to charge each individual fee payer for the actual time (converted to actual cost), materials, support, and overhead necessary to provide the specific government services to him/her. Under this "time tracking" model, every charge would be unique, since this approach requires the City to track all costs associated with each particular project, including the specific allocation of City staff time shared between projects. The time tracking approach would result in a significant administrative burden for direct and support staff to constantly track and calculate costs and fees to each individual customer. The result would be greater cost (direct and overhead), loss of efficiency, and time delays as staff members are forced to devote additional administrative and direct time (both charged to the customer) to track the time. The complexity of this approach (i.e., variable staff costs, variable time consumption, variable material consumption, variable overhead and indirect charges, etc.) is also contrary to the efficient practices and the approaches used by many business enterprises that provide a high volume of services to a wide variety -of customers each year. July 8, 2005 11 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT MAXIMUS generally recommends against the "time tracking" approach for most user fees. First of all, the potential greater accuracy of tracking and charging for individual consumption of government services is likely outweighed by the additional burdens and probable costs borne by the customer. In addition, without standardized fees, MAXIMUS is concerned about the potential for impact to the jurisdiction and its customers from Parkinson's Law of Unintended Consequences. This informal maxim states that "work efforts will expand to fill the time budgeted to complete the task." In periods of low activity, staff may devote more time to individual tasks (because they have the time and need to fill it), and pass the additional costs on to the customers. This situation causes inordinately high fees to be charged to the applicant. In our opinion, standardized fees hold the following advantages: • Applicants/customers can know their expenditures before making applications to the City and plan their business accordingly. • The City will not have to coordinate (or deal with) requests from customers for specific staff members to service them. (e.g., "I want Jim Smith to review my plans, because he is faster and less expensive.") • The City can better predict its revenue stream based upon anticipated volumes, which is a more stable basis than billable work hours. • Fixed fees encourage greater productivity and efficiency, since there is no incentive for staff to extend individual projects to bring more revenue into the City. At the very least, fixed fees eliminate the potential for the community to perceive that such an incentive exists. Despite our general discouragement, in some special cases the time tracking approach might be optimal, such as when the local jurisdiction has a compelling need for accuracy and defensibility due to litigation, outside reporting requirements, or significant gaps in current data collection. In addition, a specific time tracking approach may be the only feasible method in unique or extraordinary land development or building cases that do not reasonably fit within the existing fee structure (e.g., stadium, aquarium, amusement park, etc.). July 8, 2005 12 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT 'F'INDINGS AND RESULTS) General Findings Recognizing the specific benefit of a particular user fee service to an applicant, our generalization to a client is that they set most fee levels to recover the full cost of providing the service. However, this first suggestion is often tempered by the fiscal, political, and economic realities within the local jurisdiction. Overall, actual increased revenue may vary due to extraneous factors, such as elasticity of demand and construction and other service activity. The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision -makers with the basic data needed for setting fees. Pricing levels for City services is an issue the City must address based on social, economic, and other policy considerations. The decision matrix (page 8) is designed to assist in this matter. In considering fee increases, the City should recall the basic definition of a user fee: a service that an individual or group receives for his/her personal, economic, or physical benefit, as opposed to a benefit serving the community as a whole. As a cost of service (fee) study, the project did not seek to determine answers to operations oriented issues faced by the City, nor did it seek to provide recommendations for improvements to City processes or policies. Instead, the purpose was to help the City identify and understand its cost of service—as currently provided. Consequently, our analysis does not result in traditional "findings" regarding the operational effectiveness or efficiency of the department operations. Instead, our findings represent the outcome of the study: various lists of services and their related costs (potential fees). This section of the report presents these results. In reviewing the report and its conclusions, the following points should be noted: 1. Summary numbers are on the full cost basis and include all program, divisional, departmental, and citywide overhead costs. 2. For analytical purposes, the study's unit volume was established by dividing the actual revenue in FY 2002-2003 for a particular fee category by its current fee in that same fiscal year. This represents management's best estimate of a "normal" annual volume. However, current revenue figures still may be slightly at variance with actual revenues. July 8, 2005 13 of 23 1 1 1 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Summary of Results The results of the MAXIMUS cost analysis demonstrate the full actual cost of providing each of the fee -related services included in the study. By annualizing and combining the results for each fee, we identified the potential revenue impacts of the current fees and fees hypothetically set at the full (100%) cost -recovery levels. The following table illustrates these impacts: Summary of Actual Cost and Recommended Fee Results Department / Division FULL COST: Annual Cost of All Services (fee and non -fee) CURRENT REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Current Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE GROWTH (@ Reed Fees) Community Development (Planning & Building) $ 1,081,000 $ 721,000 $ 1,081,000 $ 360,000 Public Works $ 126,000 $ 97,000 $ 126,000 $ 29,000 Fire $ 223,000 $ 153,000 $ 223,000 $ 70,000 Police $ 180,000 $ 106,000 $ 180,000 $ 74,000 TOTALS: $ 1,610,000 $ 1,077,000 $ 1,610,000 $ 533,000 (Note: For presentation purposes in this report, these figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.) The detail supporting these figures exists in a voluminous series of worksheets and computer models. MAXIMUS provided the necessary detail to the City under separate cover. In all departments and divisions studied, MAXIMUS identified an overall current subsidy provided by the City to the fee -payers, whereby the City was charging less than the full actual cost of providing the services. For specific/individual fees and services, on a unit -by -unit basis, the City overcharged for some and undercharged for others, but the net overall effect was an annual undercharge. The cost analysis conducted by MAXIMUS sought to rectify each instance and identify the actual cost to allow the City to align the fees with the costs more accurately. Key Study Assumptions and Issues Time "Estimates" As discussed previously in this report, MAXIMUS believes that an actual time -tracking approach is not reasonable or cost effective. Consequently, our fee models employ standardized, averaged, or estimated times for the completion of fee -related tasks. While this approach is imperfect, it can still easily meet a standard of "reasonableness" with regards to July 8, 2005 14 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT the linkage between the fees and the cost of services, particularly over the course of multiple projects and a full fiscal year. In the study for the City of Hermosa Beach, the departments did not have existing time tracking data and had to rely upon time estimates prepared by knowledgeable staff and managers. This approach is reasonable and appropriate, because the experienced staff and managers of the City of Hermosa Beach are the preeminent experts on the subject of work requirements in the City of Hermosa Beach, particularly considering the unique level of service and staff capabilities in the City. In short, nobody knows the business of services in Hermosa Beach better than the department staff and managers. There are no other sources of information that are currently qualified to reliably contradict the time estimates provided by the City. The time estimates provided by the City underwent a rigorous internal review process that entailed multiple iterations and modifications until all parties were satisfied that the estimates reflected reality. Department staff spent a great deal of time and effort considering and debating each time estimate, until they were certain that the estimates reflected reality. In addition, the department conducted some "spot checks" of actual data to reaffirm the accuracy of the estimates. At the beginning of the study, MAXIMUS had asked the department to provide estimates that represented standard projects—without skewing for "best -case" and "worst-case" scenarios, and the department utilized this approach. Fee Level and Revenue Comparisons As part of this study, the City and MAXIMUS created new fees and restructured many of the existing fees though consolidations, separations, and other requested fee changes. As a result of these issues, there are some limitations to the utility of the "potential revenue" figures indicated in our summary worksheets. This information is intended to inform the City of the relative level of change to its revenues that could result from the adoption of the fee levels identified by MAXIMUS. In other words, we do not recommend that the City rely upon the full amount of this revenue for critical operations or purchases, as a variety of factors could result in significant changes. Instead, we recommend a conservative approach regarding the new revenue assumptions. Non -Fee Services The "fee" analysis conducted by MAXIMUS included all development related services, except impact fees, that the City provides, as well as a series of other functional fees. Within these functions (departments), we calculated the cost of the services whether the City currently charges a fee or not, so the cost analysis includes services for which the City does not currently charge a fee. Future initiation of fees for these services is at the discretion of the City. July 8, 2005 15 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT "Recommended" Fees Cities have a variety of reasons to conduct fee studies, depending on their community goals, City Council direction, and executive intent. These reasons include: • Increase revenue • Encourage or discourage certain activity in the community (e.g., development) • Ensure compliance with state and local fee limitations • Prepare documentation for litigation • Develop detailed cost and other management information for additional analysis Normally, MAXIMUS recommends that a City increase (or decrease) most fees to the "full cost" level to maximize revenues, since this is the predominant City goal we encounter. However, the City Council is the ultimate decision -maker regarding the level of individual fees, and they will set fees after considering a variety of related factors, including policy decisions and City staff input. During this study, the City indicated to MAXIMUS that the general policy regarding recovery rates or subsidy levels is to set fees at 100% cost recovery wherever feasible. As a result, our recommended fees default to 100% cost recovery. MAXIMUS presented the resultant fees as the "recommended" fees shown in this study (appendices). Multi -Year Fees (Updates) MAXIMUS developed the fee analysis based upon FY 2002-2003 actual expenditures provided by the City. Once fee adjustments are implemented, we recommend the City update the fee schedules periodically to account for changes in costs over time. The development and use of an automatic fee increase mechanism normally provides a level of convenience and efficiency, because staff does not have to take the time to recalculate cost recovery percentages each year, yet the fees will increase to recover some of the budget increases. However, the use of a sub- optimal approach can result in cost increases significantly outpacing the fee increases. In order to ensure that the City receives appropriate fee increases that reflect the actual growth in cost, MAXIMUS has identified a series of alternatives: Alternative 1: Update the Fee Model Annually The most accurate method to ensure accurate fee increases is to recalculate fees based upon new staffing and expenditure numbers each year. However, this approach would likely be the most time consuming (and expensive) of the alternatives, as it requires significant financial analysis and a repeat of the approval process. July 8, 2005 16 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Alternative 2: Apply CPI Factors Annually A number of CPI factors are available for use by the City to establish pre -determined fee increases. The City could use regional factors determined by the state of California, industry/commodity-specific CPI factors, or regional factors determined by a variety of local groups (Chamber of Commerce, etc.). The key to this approach is to use the predicted factors, not one-year historical factors. As communities have learned in the past few years with gasoline and electricity costs, economic factors can change quickly and cause historical factors to be obsolete. However, the use of predictive factors can also be problematic for the same reason. Tying City user fee increases to cost factors that may or may not reflect reality in the departments is a potentially inaccurate approach. A better approach would be to link the increases with known factors and factors that most effectively influence departmental costs. Alternative 3: City Labor Costs (Recommended Alternative) Labor costs comprise the bulk of expenses for most City departments. Consequently, changes in labor costs drive the overall change in department costs. To better recover increased costs, the City can insert into the rate schedule a fee increase factor that is based upon known and anticipated labor cost increases, such as programmed cost of living raises, association agreements, salary step increases, benefits increases, and other salary or benefit enhancements. Labor costs are generally easier to predict than most other costs, since the City has greater control over its internal costs. Furthermore, common CPI factors are not specific to the regional economy surrounding Hermosa Beach. As a result, MAXIMUS believes that a factor based upon specific labor costs would be the most accurate indicator of overall departmental cost increases. Jurisdictional Comparisons As a tangent to a cost of service or fee study, many Cities are tempted to compare their fees to the fees of other local or similar jurisdictions. The specific purposes of these comparisons vary, but they are generally intended to identify "where we stand." In effect, most jurisdictions do not want to have the highest fees in the area and suffer the resultant notoriety and political ramifications of being at the high end of the spectrum. Within the context of a fee calculation study, however, fee comparisons between jurisdictions have very little practical utility—and could be quite misleading. Admittedly, comparisons can help City leaders understand the market environment to help make market-based or political decisions, but such comparisons do not reveal any objective information or identify the true relationship of the fees to costs to help make cost -based decisions. July 8, 2005 17 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT The results of a fee level comparison reveal what other jurisdictions are charging for certain defined services, but not what those activities cost to provide. As a result, such a comparison usually has no value in a cost of service study, such as the fee study completed by MAXIMUS. Fee comparisons between jurisdictions have little constructive analytical value, because every jurisdiction and its fees are different and may not be based on actual cost. Many specific factors can create differences_ that affect cost, and examples of these factors include: • Fees are defined differently. The same "fee" with the same name or intent may include or exclude certain activities or. sub -services, which compromise any "match - up. • Direct costs for similar services may be very -different, due to varying pay scales, benefits, productivity factors, and other cost components.: • Indirect costs may vary greatly among jurisdictions, due to supervision levels, support structures, organizational structures, cost allocation methodologies, and frequency of allocation updates. • Different jurisdictions provide varying service levels, both in terms of quantity and quality, which affects the staffing levels, productivity, and other factors that drive the cost. Since every jurisdiction is different, an in-depth investigation and analysis of comparable jurisdiction operations and fees would be necessary to make a valid ("apples to apples") comparison. Otherwise, any comparative data would most likely be cosmetic in nature and possibly misleading. Community Development Fee Results The cost analysis performed for the Community Development Department includes both the Building and Planning functions. Summary Description The Building Department is responsible for plan checking all building plans and inspecting all phases of construction to ensure the life, safety and health of residents, employees and others in the City as well as to ensure compliance with all building, electrical, plumbing, disabled access, energy and other applicable codes. The Planning Department is responsible for assisting the community in planning for its future by preparing, compiling, and disseminating information on land use, housing, transportation, and other issues that affect the City; facilitating the public process through which plans and policies are adopted; processing development applications; making recommendations on long- range planning issues and specific development proposals; and conducting environmental review consistent with State Law. July 8, 2005 18 of 23 1 1 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT Findings The cost analysis of Community Development's fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $360,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City - provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. The detailed "findings" of a MAXFEE study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets and reports that the study produces. MAXIMUS provided the voluminous detail and background materials behind all of the calculations and analysis to the City under separate cover. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: Annual Cost of All Services (fee related) CURRENT REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Current Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE GROWTH (@ Rec' d Fees) $ 1,081,000 $ 721,000 $ 1,081,000 $ 360,000 For new construction related Building fees, the City of Hermosa Beach uses the "valuation" method adopted by most municipalities in setting building permit and plan check fees, basing fees on the adopted fee schedule and on construction valuation tables issued periodically by an industry publication. For this fee study, MAXIMUS worked with the City to maintain and update this approach. The cost analysis of Building's fee -related services for new construction indicated that the average current fee levels are set approximately 28% lower than actual cost. The following table displays an updated fee schedule at 100% full cost recovery. Note: Plan Check fees remain at 80% of the permit fee, where applicable. The cost analysis of Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Inspection services indicated that current fee levels are also set lower than actual cost. The table below displays the maximum July 8, 2005 19 of 23 1 d 0 R FEE .,. ai y "y. 4 y¢YY Cb os , ecomencedT Fe- eu s �aD'611D 000/ �Recouery.. VALUATION THRESHOLD BASE FEE INCREMENT PER $100 INCREMENT PER $1,000 BASE FEE INCREMENT PER $100 INCREMENT PER $1,000 $1 - 500 $ 28.00 $ - $ 35.84 $ - $501 - 2,000 $ 28.00 $ 4.50 $ - $ 35.84 $ 5.76 $ - $2,001 - 25,000 $ 95.50 $ 17.50 $ 122.24 $ 22.40 $25,001 - 50,000 $ 498.00 $ 13.25 $ 637.44 $ 16.96 $50,001 - 100,000 $ 829.25 $ 8.75 $ 1,061.44 $ 11.20 $100,001 AND UP $ 1,266.75 $ 7.25 $ 1,621.44 $ 9.28 Note: Plan Check fees remain at 80% of the permit fee, where applicable. The cost analysis of Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Inspection services indicated that current fee levels are also set lower than actual cost. The table below displays the maximum July 8, 2005 19 of 23 1 1 1 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT average percentage increase that can be applied to all fees within each permit category to achieve 100% cost recovery: Public Works - Engineering Fee Results Summary Description The Public Works Engineering Division reviews land development proposals, zoning matters and environmental studies to ensure compliance with City and State regulations. It also conducts inspections of construction activity and regulates various activities in the City that impact the local right-of-ways or infrastructure. Findings The cost analysis of Engineering fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $29,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City - provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. The detailed "findings" of a MAXFEE study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets and reports that the study produces. MAXIMUS provided the voluminous detail and background materials behind all of the calculations and analysis to the City under separate cover. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: Annual Cost of All Fee Related Services ua POTENTIAL REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees Percentage �A�nre�se t $ 126,000 Revenue F Actual'Annua X100% Cost Per YP sj ,mit � e �.� x02 03 �.. � ��. Cost; Recovery Plumbing - Inspection $ 26,626 $ 45,304 70% Mechanical - Inspection $ 45,537 $ 50,471 89% Electrical - Inspection $ 9,277 $ 17,523 11% Public Works - Engineering Fee Results Summary Description The Public Works Engineering Division reviews land development proposals, zoning matters and environmental studies to ensure compliance with City and State regulations. It also conducts inspections of construction activity and regulates various activities in the City that impact the local right-of-ways or infrastructure. Findings The cost analysis of Engineering fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $29,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City - provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. The detailed "findings" of a MAXFEE study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets and reports that the study produces. MAXIMUS provided the voluminous detail and background materials behind all of the calculations and analysis to the City under separate cover. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: Annual Cost of All Fee Related Services CURRENT REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Current Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE GROWTH (@ Rec' d Fees) $ 126,000 $ 97,000 $ 126,000 $ 29,000 For most Engineering fees, MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a 100% cost recovery level. Certain exceptions to this "rule" exist for fees the City wants to administer without discouraging compliance or where external factors (e.g., state statutes for wide load/oversize July 8, 2005 20 of 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT fees) dictate the fees. The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 2) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. Fire Fee Results Summary Description In addition to its emergency response and public safety functions, the Fire , Department supports plan checks and inspections related to the construction of new occupancies, as well as hazardous activities and materials, and public facilities. Findings The cost analysis of the Fire Department's fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is approximately $70,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City - provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. MAXIMUS provided the detailed models with all data and calculations to the City under separate cover. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: Annual Cost of All Fee Related Services CURRENT REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Guy -rent Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE GROWTH (@ Rec' d Fees) $ 223,000 $ 153,000 $ 223,000 $ 70,000 For Fire Department fees, MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a 100% cost recovery level. We did not identify any obvious exceptions to the full cost fee setting approach. The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 3) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. Police Fee Results Summary Description In addition to its patrol and commonly known public safety functions, the Police Department provides a series of other services, including alarm permits and records management. Findings The cost analysis of Police Department fee -related services indicated that the average current fee levels are set lower than actual cost. The annual full actual cost of these services is July 8, 2005 21 of 23 I r t 1 1 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT approximately $74,000 greater than the current potential fee revenue, resulting in a City - provided "subsidy" (or general fund contribution) to fee -payers. This subsidy represents the potential new revenue the City could generate if it sets all fees at the full cost recovery level. As with the rest of the fee departments, the detailed "findings" of a MAXFEE study are primarily represented in the detailed worksheets prepared in the analytical model. MAXIMUS provided the detailed models with all data and calculations to the City under separate cover. The following table shows the revenue impacts for these programs: FULL COST: Annual Cost of All Fee Related Services CURRENT REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Current Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE: Annual Revenue at Recommended Fees POTENTIAL REVENUE GROWTH (@ Rec'd Fees) $ 180,000 $ 106,000 $ 180,000 $ 74,000 For Police Department fees, MAXIMUS recommends setting fees at a 100% cost recovery level. We did not identify any obvious exceptions to the full cost fee setting approach. The fee results and revenues identified in our summary findings (Appendix 4) present the full cost and recommended fee levels. July 8, 2005 22 of 23 CONCLUSIOIVI City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT The City of Hermosa Beach engaged MAXIMUS to determine the full cost of fee -related services provided to its citizens and businesses. MAXIMUS employed proven and objective methodologies to calculate the cost of the services, and we used our experience to help the City develop reasonable potential fees. In all departments and divisions studied, MAXIMUS identified an overall current subsidy provided by the City to the fee -payers as a whole, whereby the City was charging less than the full actual cost of providing the services. For specific/individual fees and services, on a unit - by -unit basis, the City overcharged for some and undercharged for others, but the net overall effect was an annual undercharge. The cost analysis conducted by MAXIMUS sought to rectify each instance and identify the actual cost to allow the City to align the fees with the costs more accurately. With the information gained from this study, City leaders are in a much better position to understand their costs and existing subsidy conditions. The City can use this information to make more informed decisions and set fees, to meet the fiscal and policy goals and objectives of the City. July 8, 2005 23 of 23 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT 2 APPENDIX 1: COST RESULTS for COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES July 8, 2005 Appendices 1 1 1 1 r 1 City of HERMOSA BEACH USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS M U Nl TY;".D E V ELO P M E N T :r UNIT REYENUEIMPAGTS Fee # Fee or Service Name/ Description Annual Quantity Current Fee Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee Per Unit Surplus 1 (Subsidy) Annual Quantity Annual Revenue at Current Fee Actual Annual Cost 1 Potential Revenue Annual Revenue Surplus / (Deficit) Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus I (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue it the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharg 1 Building Permit- Plan Review & lnsp 1 $ 492,923 $ 632,354 $ (139,432) •• $ 492,923 $ 632,354 $ (139,432) 2 Plumbing Permit - Inspection 1 $ 26,626 $ 45,304 $ (18,678) $ 26,626 $ 45,304 $ (18,678) 3 Electrical Permit - Inspection 1 $ 45,537 $ 50,471 $ (4,934) $ ' 45,537 $ 50,471 $ (4,934) 4 Mechanical Permit - Inspection 1 $ 9,277 $ 17,523 $ (8,246) $ 9,277 $ 17,523 $ (8,246) 6 Building Code Board of Appeals 0 $ 191 $ 448 $ (257) $ - $ - $ - 7 Res Bldg Report 392 $ 50 $ 212 $ (162) $ 19,600 $ 83,096 $ (63,496) 8 Sign Permit 26 $ 103 $ 214 $ (111) $ 2,678 $ 5,558. $ (2,880) 9 Temp Sign Permit 44 $ 38 $ 222 $ (184) $ 1,672 $ 9,750 $ (8,078) 10 Appeal of PC Action to CC 10 ' $ 557 $ 1,492 $ (935) $ 5,570 $ ' 14,919 $ (9,349) 11 Variance 7 $ - 1,180 $ 1,627 $ (447) $ 8,260 $ '11,388 $ (3,128) 13 CUP Commercial Amendement • 11 $ 409 $ 1,474 $ (1,065) $ 4,499 $ ' 16,218 $ (11,719) 14 CUP Minor Amendment 2 $ 118 $ 1,460 $ (1,342) $ 236 $ 2,920 $ (2,684) 15 CUP Fences & Walls 0 $ 243 $ 1,301 $ (1,058) $ - $ - $ - 16 Environmental Assesment 9 $ 377 $ 1,161 $ (784) $ 3,393 $ 10,448 $ (7,055) 17 Final Tentative Map Extension 7 $ 287 $ 1,338 $ (1,051) $ 2,009 $ 9,367 $ (7,358) 18 Final Map 15 $ 287 $ 1,302 $ (1,015) $ 4,305 $ 19,526 $ (15,221) 19 General Plan Amendement & Zone Change 9 $ 1,532 $ 2,712 $ (1,180) $ 13,788 $ 24,405 $ (10,617) 20 Lot Line Adjustment 1 $ 658 $ 1,397 $ (739) $ 658 $ 1,397 $ (739) 21 Nonconforming Remodel 10 $ 856 $ 1,493 $ (637) $ 8,560 $ 14,926 $ (6,366) 22 Parking Plan 4 $ 1,175 $ 1,541 $ (366) $ 4,700 $ 6,166 $ (1,466) 23 Appeal of Director Action to PC 13 $ 422 $ 1,396 $ (974) $ 5,486 $ 18,144 $ (12,658) 24 Precise Dev Plan 22 $ 1,462 $ 2,260 $ (798) $ 32,164 $ 49,712 $ (17,548) 25 Subdivision Lot Split 1 $ 1,175 $ 1,719 $ (544) $ 1,175 $ 1,719 $ (544) 26 Lot Merger 3 $ 204 $ 1,396 $ (1,192) $ 612 $ 4,188 $ (3,576) 27 Height Limit Exception 0 $ 409 $ 1,397 $ (988) $ - $ - $ - 28 CUP Other 6 $ 766 $ 1,396 $ (630) $ 4,596 $ 8,374 $ (3,778) 29 Private Text Amendment (Zone Code) 1 $ 568 $ 1,642 $ (1,074) $ 568 $ 1,642 $ (1,074) 30 Legal Determination 1 $ 1,274 $ 1,973 $ (699) $ 1,274 $ 1,973 $ (699) 31 Bldg Code Enf - Annual` 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 32 Planning Code Enf. - Annual* 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 33 Zone Text Amendment - Non -Fee " 0 $ - $ 23,663 $ (23,663) $ - $ - $ - 34 Economic Development - Non -Fee" 0 $ - $ 19,332 $ (19,332) $ - $ - $ - 35 117 -AB 939 - Non -Fee" 0 $ - $ 24,794 $ (24,794) $ - $ - $ - 36 Transit Programs - 145 Prop A" 0 $ - $ 271,686 $ (271,686) $ - $ - $ - 37 CDBG Programs" 0 $ - $ 30,035 $ (30,035) $ - $ - $ - 38 CUP, up to 2 units 16 $ 1,149 $ 1,126 $ 23 $ 18,386 $ 18,017 $ 369 39 CUP per unit over 2 12 $ 192 $ 126 $ 65 $ 2,299 $ 1,517 $ 782 40 CD DIRECTOR HOURLY 0 $ - $ 126 $ (126) $ - $ - $ - 41 SR BLDG INSP HOURLY 0 $ 67 $ 80 $ (14) $ - $ $ - 42 BLDG INSP HOURLY 0 $ 63 $ 58 $ 5 $ - $ - $ - 43 CITY PLANNER HOURLY 0 $ - $ 82 $ (82) $ - $ - $ - 44 ASSOC PLANNER HOURLY 0 $ - $ 74 $ (74) $ - $ - $ - 45 PLANNING ASST HOURLY 0 $ - $ 59 $ (59) $ - $ - $ - 46 CLERICAL HOURLY 0 $ - $ 55 $ (55) $ - $ - $ - 47 CODE ENF OFFICER HOURLY 0 $ 53 $ 53 $ 1 $ - $ - $ - NF Non -User Fee Activities 0 $ - $ 80,419 $ (80,419) $ - $ - $ - • TOTALS: $ 720,850 $ 1,081,023 $ (360,173)1 MAXIMUS, Inc Appendix 1 - Page 1 of 2 7/8/2005 Fee # A reference number to facilitate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Quantity The annual number of each service provided, as reported by the City Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus I (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue it the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharg Non -User Fee Activities These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals. Additional Notes: • Recovered in Building and Planning Fees •• These represent non -user fee activities that are either subsidized by the general fund, or recovered through other revenue sources, such as CDBG funds, AB 939 funds, etc. MAXIMUS, Inc Appendix 1 - Page 1 of 2 7/8/2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of HERMOSA BEACH USER FEE STUDY RECOMMENDED FEE RESULTS OMMIJ,NiTY' EVELQPRMENT , TOTALS: $ 720,850 $ 1,081,023 $ 360,173 Lecatrvu: w� '; REC.QMMENDED FEES , ? x e ; ` ` >:, . VENUE4MPACTa<r ,- :,' Fee # Fee Service Name / Description Current Fee .Recommended, :. '' c.Fee:.',':'::. /e':i>' Recovery :, (of full : .... ..:.cost) ': : Remaining Per Unit Surplus/ (Subsidy) Annual Revenue at Current Fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee Potential Additional Revenue (@ Reed Fee) Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharq Non -User Fee Activities These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals. Additional Notes: 1 Building Permit- Plan Review & Insp $492,923 • $ ': 632,354 :. 100% $ - $ 492,923 $ 632,354 $ 139,432 2 Plumbing Permit- Inspection $ 26,626 .$'; ':::".45,304 '.::.-::.:.100% $ - $ 26,626 $ 45,304 $ 18,678 3 Electrical Permit - Inspection $ 45,537 $ 50,47.1 '. 100% $ - $ 45,537 $ 50,471 $ 4,934 4 Mechanical Permit - Inspection $ 9,277 $ .:17,523 • `100% $ $ 9,277 $ 17,523 $ 8,246 6 Building Code Board of Appeals $ 191 $`'fGl:::.-' : ' 448 • .:. '• 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 7 Res Bldg Report $ 50 $'''.' " l a:. 212 ::::::100% $ - $ 19,600 $ 83,096 $ 63,496 8 Sign Permit $ 103 $:'::; 214 .: ;:.::::.100% $ - $ 2,678 $ 5,558 $ 2,880 9 Temp Sign Permit $ 38 $,.:!:: ;:: 222 ;100% $ - $ 1,672 $ 9,750 $ 8,078 10 Appeal of PC Action to CC $ 557 $ ( 1,492 100% $ - $ 5,570 $ 14,919 $ 9,349 11 Variance $ 1,180 : $ . :..::.:: 1,627::: ;:::: 100% $ - $ 8,260 $ 11,388 $ 3,128 13 CUP Commercial Amendement $ 409 ::.$.:!!::::::::;!,::q:!.1.,474 : =:?" x'100% $ - $ 4,499 $ 16,218 $ 11,719 14 CUP Minor Amendment $ 118 .'$.: `•••::"''1;460' .::' .100% $ - $ 236 $ 2,920 $ 2,684 15 CUP Fences & Walls $ 243 $:. 1,301 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 16 Environmental Assesment $ 377 .$::,:,,,:;:.,:!::::::::::1:;161 • '100% $ - $ 3,393 $ 10,448 $ 7,055 17 Final Tentative Map Extension $ 287 $...::: 1,338 .:::.::'',100% $ - $ 2,009 $ 9,367 $ 7,358 18 Final Map $ 287 .$? :i`::, b: !:1,302 l ? 100% $ - $ 4,305 $ 19,526 $ 15,221 19 General Plan Amendement & Zone Change $ 1,532 $::.i,: '' '. 2,712 , 5: 100% $ - $ 13,788 $ 24,405 $ 10,617 20 Lot Line Adjustment $ 658 $- 1,397 '.100% $ - $ 658 $ 1,397 $ 739 21 Nonconforming Remodel $ 856'$:;,i::'!:;:::1,493 -100% $ - $ 8,560 $ 14,926 $ 6,366 22 Parking Plan $ 1,175 i:$' :''::i°::':.1,541.: r': `100% $ - $ 4,700 $ 6,166 $ 1,466 23 Appeal of Director Action to PC $ 422 • $: ':::..:G '1,396 :' . 100% $ - $ 5,486 $ 18,144 $ 12,658 24 Precise Dev Plan $ 1,462 :,$ i=, ::' ;2,260: "::,;';�;:10.0°/a $ - $ 32,164 $ 49,712 $ 17,548 25 Subdivision Lot Split $ 1,175 $ 1,719 100% $ - $ 1,175 $ 1,719 $ 544 26 Lot Merger $ 204 $ ...: '1.396 :100% $ - $ 612 $ 4,188 $ 3,576 27 Height Limit Exception $ 409 $:: ,;'.:--::.1,397 ; :.. ':100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 28 CUP Other $ 766 $:'`::•• i' . 1,396 ; ::; ::.` 100% $ - $ 4,596 $ 8,374 $ 3,778 29 Private Text Amendment (Zone Code) $ 568 S 1,642 100% $ - $ 568 $ 1,642 $ 1,074 30 Legal Determination $ 1,274 $ !;151:,973 100% $ - $ 1,274 $ 1,973 $ , 699 31 Bldg Code Enf- Annual• $ $ : 0% $ - $ - $ - $ 32 Planning Code Enf. - Annual' $ - $ :!::•;:::;.. ':. 0%' $ - $ - $ - $ - 33 Zone Text Amendment - Non -Fee •• $ - $-^'`::`::.:':: ;r:::::,:::!;]!;.:•,:..:.] 0% $ - $ - $ - $ - 34 Economic Development - Non -Fee" $ - $ .::.:: .:: 0% $ - $ - $ - $ - 35 117 -AB 939 - Non -Fee" $ - $•:' ':::;'::::a:: _::':! .;;. `;': 0% $ - $ - $ - $ - 36 Transit Programs - 145 Prop A'• $ - . $::: ;:a:.;.;:` .'- .: :;.;.. 0% $ - $ - $ - $ - 37 CDBG Programs" $ $ •-0% $ - $ - $ - $ - 38 CUP, up to 2 units $ 1,149 $:::-1:: -. 0% $ - $ 18,386 $ 18,017 $ (369) 39 CUP per unit over 2 $ 192 "$'::. `:;' - : 126. is :- 100% $ - $ 2,299 $ 1,517 $ (782) 40 CD DIRECTOR HOURLY $ $ - 126100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 41 SR BLDG INSP HOURLY $ 67 $:.:--!i:.•::::::::: 80 ' ;100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 42 BLDG INSP HOURLY $ 63 $ .::`;.;:::::.;::58 :., r; 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 43 CITY PLANNER HOURLY $ $•.:' 82 . 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 44 ASSOC PLANNER HOURLY $ - -$':i` ;:'.`i'' `'::.74 : "`:.' 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 45 PLANNING ASST HOURLY $ 'E!::,: 59 '100% $ - $ - .$ - $ 46 CLERICAL HOURLY $ $ 55-: ...:100% $ - $ - $ - $ - 47 CODE ENF OFFICER HOURLY $ 53 :$.:_';..: ..:.: -53 .....:.100/ $ - $ - $ - $ - NF Non -User Fee Activities $ $. i:> . 0% $ - $ - $ - $ TOTALS: $ 720,850 $ 1,081,023 $ 360,173 Lecatrvu: Fee # A reference number to facilitate discussion ° Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Quantity The annual number of each service provided, as reported by the City Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharq Non -User Fee Activities These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals. Additional Notes: 1 I I 11 1 • Recovered in Building and Planning Fees These represent non -user fee activities that are either subsidized by the general fund, or recovered through other revenue sources, such as CDBG funds, AB 939 funds, etc. MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 1 - Page 2 of 2 7/8/2005 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 2: COST RESULTS for PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING July 8, 2005 Appendices 1 1 1 1 t City of HERMOSA BEACH USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS IRKS: Wi "UNIT COSTS ;REVENUE I.MPACTS? x I , ;;; Fee # Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Quantity Current Fee Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) Annual Quantity Annual Revenue at Current Fee Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue Annual Revenue Surplus / (Deficit) Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus I (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharg 1 BANNER PERMIT 14 $ 236 $ 418 $ (182) $ 3,297 $ 5,836 $ (2,539) 2 STREET EXCAV CONSTR 151 $ 185 $ 181 $ 4 $ 27,918 $ 27,313 $ 605 3 STREET EXCAV UTIL CO 150 $ 147 $ 264 $ (117) $ 21,980 $ 39,419 $ (17,439) 4 SEWER PERMIT LATERAL 30 $ 191 $ 203 $ (12) $ 5,730 $ 6,102 $ (372) 5 DEMO SEWER PERMIT 62 $ 191 $ 130 $ 61 $ 11,757 $ 8,000 $ 3,757 6 ENCROACHMENT FILING FEE 27 $ 365 $ 228 $ 137 $ 9,855 $ 6,164 $ 3,691 8 MISC. USE PERMIT 308 $ 51 $ 96 $ (45) $ 15,698 $ 29,682 $ (13,984) 9 COMM OUTSIDE DINING PERMIT 1 $ 357 $ 398 $ (41) $ 357 $ 398 $ (41) 10 UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (per 250 If.) 16 $ - $ 174 $ (174) $ - $ 2,784 $ (2,784) 17 RESI BLDG REPORT ' 0 $ - $ 19 $ (19) $ - $ - $ - 18 DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHK • 0 $ - $ 60,235 $ (60,235) $ - $ - $ - 19 PW DIR HOURLY 0 $ 120 $ 152 $ (32) $ - $ - $ - 20 PW SUPERINTENDANT HOURLY 0 $ 82 $ 98 $ (16) $ - $ - $ - 21 ASST ENGINEER HOURLY 0 $ - $ 73 $ (73) $ $ - $ - 22 ASSOCIATE ENG HOURLY 0 $ - $ 83 $ (83) $ - $ - $ - 23 ADMIN ASST HOURLY 0 $ - $ 65 $ (65) $ - $ - $ - 24 CLERK TYPIST HOURLY 0 $ - $ 56 $ (56) $ - $ - $ - 25 CREWLEADER HOURLY 0 $ 68 $ 72 $ (4) $ - $ - $ - 26 MINTENANCE II HOURLY 0 $ 52 $ 54 $ (2) $ - $ - $ - 27 MAINTENANCE I HOURLY 0 $ 40 $ 47 $ (7) $ - $ - $ - 28 SR EQUIP TECH HOURLY 0 $ - $ 73 $ (73) $ - $ - $ - 29 EQUIP MECH HOURLY 0 $ - $ 52 $ (52) $ - $ - $ - 30 PW INSP HOURLY 0 $ - $ 72 $ (72) $ - $ - $ - NF Non -User Fee Activities 0 $ - $ 3,752,156 $ (3,752,156) $ - $ - $ • TOTALS: I $ 96,592 I $ 125,698 I $ (29,106)1 MAXIMUS, Inc Page 1 of 2 Printed: 7/8/2005 - 11:29 AM Fee # A reference number to facilitate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Quantity The annual number of each service provided, as reported by the City Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus I (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharg Non -User Fee Activities These represent non -user fee activities that are either subsidized by the general fund, or recovered through other Additional Notes: • This represents Public Works time spent on a Community Development activity. This cost is forwarded to Community Development for inclusion in that fee analysis MAXIMUS, Inc Page 1 of 2 Printed: 7/8/2005 - 11:29 AM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of HERMOSA BEACH USER FEE STUDY RECOMMENDED FEE RESULTS WRECOMMENDED;F;EES,. r;REVEN UE 1)M.PACTS; ra¢,q,,:i Fee # Fee Service Name / Description Current Fee Recommended Fee ..... Recovery (of full cost) Remaining Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) Annual Revenue at Current Fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee Potential Additional Revenue (@ Rec'd Fee) 1 2 3 4 BANNER PERMIT $ 236 418. .100%. $ 3,297 $ 5,836 STREET EXCAV CONSTR STREET EXCAV UTIL CO $ 185 $„ ;181, 100% $ $ 27,918 $ 27,313 $ 2,539 $ (605) $ 147 264 100% $ 21,980 $ 39,419 $ 17,439 SEWER PERMIT LATERAL $ 191 203' :'100% $ 5,730 $ 6,102 5 DEMO SEWER PERMIT $ 191 $'::` :: °i 130 100% $ 11,757 $ 8,000 372 $ (3,757) 6 ENCROACHMENT FILING FEE $ 365 228 100% $ 9,855 $ 6,164 8 MISC. USE PERMIT $ 51 96 100% $ 15,698 9 10 17 18 COMM OUTSIDE DINING PERMIT $ 357 398 $ 357 $ 29,682 $ 398 $ (3,691) $ 13,984 41 UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (per 251 RESI BLDG REPORT * $ :100%0 $ $ 2,784 $ 2,784 $ D% $ $ $ $ DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHK * $ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PW DIR HOURLY $ 120 152 100,% PW SUPERINTENDANT HOURLY ASST ENGINEER HOURLY $ 82 98 .100% 73 100% $ ASSOCIATE ENG HOURLY ADMIN ASST HOURLY 83 100% $ $ 65. 100% $ CLERK TYPIST HOURLY ''>100% CREWLEADER HOURLY $ 68 $: 72, 100% $ MINTENANCE II HOURLY $ 52 100%. MAINTENANCE I HOURLY $ 40 47. ! 100%. 28 29 30 NF SR EQUIP TECH HOURLY EQUIP MECH HOURLY PW INSP HOURLY :73 100% 52 • 100%: 72 •100% $ $ Non -User Fee Activities $' 0% TOTALS: 1 $ 96,592 1 $ 125,698 1 $ 29,106 I-cucrvu: Fee # A reference number to facilitate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Quantity The annual number of each service provided, as reported by the City Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee- payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharg Non -User Fee Activities These represent non -user fee activities that are either subsidized by the general fund, or recovered Additional Notes: • This represents Public Works time spent on a Community Development activity. This cost is forwarded to Community Development for inclusion in that fee analysis MAXIMUS, Inc Page 2 of 2 Printed: 7/8/2005 - 11:29 AM City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 3: COST RESULTS for FIRE FEES July 8, 2005 Appendices 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of HERMOSA BEACH USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS ERARTME IT COST$,r? EVENUE „IMPA5TS ;f;; Fee # Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Quantity Current Fee Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) Annual Quantity Annual Revenue at Current Fee Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue Annual Revenue Surplus / (Deficit) Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Costx Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) I. The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharg 1 P/M RESP TRANS ••• 275 $ 541 $ 773 $ (232) • $ 148,775 $ 212,471 $ (63,696) 3 COMM BLDG / APT RE -INSPECTION 8 $ 224 $ 253 $ (29). $ 1,792 $ 2,026 $ (234) 4 AUTO REPAIR PERMIT 28 $ 74 $ 253 $ (179) $ 2,072 $ 7,092 $ (5,020) 5 SPRAY BOOTH PERMIT 1 $ 19 $ 27 $ (8) $ 19 $ " 27 $ (8) 6 OPEN FIRE PERMIT 2 $ 55 $ 76 $ (21) $ 110 $ 151 $ (41) 9 ANNUAL ALARM SYSTEM INSPECTION 8 $ - $ 85 $ (85) $ - $ 682 $ (682) 12 UNDERGROUND TANK 4 $ - $ 170 $ (170) $ - $ 682 .$ (682) 24 LOCK -OUT (CAR) 0 $ - $ 144 $ (144) $ - $ - $ - 25 LOCK -OUT (HOUSE) 0 $ - $ 144 $ (144) $ - $ $ - 26 FLOOD WATER REMOVAL 0 $ - $ 449 $ (449) $ - $ - $ - 27 SPRAY BOOTH INSPECTION 0 $ 383 $ 187 $ 196 $ - .$ - $ - 28 FIRE PROTECTION SYS EXISTING 0 $ 135 $ 56 $ 79 $ - . $ - $ - 30 MUTUAL AID (FIRE) • 0 $ - '$ 449 $ (449) $ - $ - $ - 31 STATION TOURS • 0 $ - $ 420 $ (420) ' $ $ - $ - 32 SCHOOL FIRE SAFETY* 0 $ - $ 873 $ (873) $ - $ - $ - 33 OPEN HOUSE • 0 $ - $ 1,746 $ (1,746) $ - $ - $ - 34 ; SAFETY LECTURE • 0 $ - $ 655 $ - (655) $ - ' $ - $ - 35 CPR CLASS 8 HOUR • 0 $ - $ 854 $ (854) $ - $ - $ - 36 CPR CLASS 4 HOUR • 0 $ - $ 427 $ (427) $ - $ - $ - 37 P/M RESP NON -TRANSPORT• 0 $ - $ 453 $ (453) $ - $ $ - 38 P/M STAND-BY • 0 $ - $ 292 $ (292) $ - $ - $ - 39 B/P SCREENING • 0 $ - $ 18 $ (18) $ - $ - $ - 40 ARSON/FIRE INVESTIGATION* 0 $ - $ 1,123 $ (1,123) $ - $ - $ - 41 PLAN CHECK -DEV. ** 0 $ - $ 47,785 $ (47,785) $ - $ - $ - 42 FIRE CHIEF HOURLY 0 $ - $ 180 $ (180) $ - $ - $ - 43 ADMIN ASST HOURLY 0 $ - $ 83 $ (83) $ - $ - $ - 44 CAPTAIN HOURLY 0 $ 83 $ 163 $ (80) $ $ - $ - 45 FIRE ENGINEER HOURLY 0 $ 69 $ 137 $ (68) $ - $ - $, - 46 FIREFIGHTER HOURLY 0 $ 54 $ 106 $ (52) $ - $ - $ - 47 PARAMEDIC HOURLY 0 $ 59 $ 114 $ (55) $ - $ ' - $ - 48 ASST FIRE CHIEF HOURLY 0 $ - $ 158 $ (158) $ - $ - .$ - NF Non -User Fee Activities 0 $ - $ 2,530,425 $ (2,530,425) $ - $ - $ - LEGEND: TOTALS: 152,788 1 $ 223,130 1 $ (70,382) MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 3 - Page 1 of 2 8/2/2005 Fee # A reference number to facilitate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Quantity The annual number of each service provided, as reported by the City Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Costx Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) I. The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharg Non -User Fee Activities These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals. Additional Notes: • These represent non-recoverable costs which am supported by the genera/ fund These costs have been calculated within the Fire Department but allocated and analyzed within the Development Department. • Current revenues assume an adjusted "Recoverable volume at non-resident rates. I 1 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 3 - Page 1 of 2 8/2/2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 City of HERMOSA BEACH USER FEE STUDY RECOMMENDED FEE RESULTS x RECOMMENDED FEES rENOCIMPACTS Fee # Fee Service Name / Description Current Fee Recommended Fee !:;'Recovery; (of full cost) Remaining Per Unit Surplus l (Subsidy) Annual Revenue at Current Fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee Potential Additional Revenue (@ Rec'd Fee) 1 P/M RESP TRANS •'• $ 541 :773', ':100%e $ 148,775 $ 212,471 $ 63,696 3 COMM BLDG / APT RE -INSPECTION $ 224 253.. ''100% $ 1,792 $ 2,026 $ 234 •4 AUTO REPAIR PERMIT $ 74 $ 253:! 100% $ 2,072 $ 7,092 $ 5,020 5 SPRAY BOOTH PERMIT $ 19 z7: 100%6 $ 19 $ 27 $ 8 6 OPEN FIRE PERMIT $ • 55 .-,1100% $ 110 $ 151 $ 41 9. ANNUAL ALARM SYSTEM INSPECTION 100% $ 682 $ 682 12 UNDERGROUND TANK 170:' 100% $ 682 $ 682 24 LOCK -OUT (CAR) 0% $ (144) 25 LOCK -OUT (HOUSE) $ 'o^io $ (144) $ 26 FLOOD WATER REMOVAL $ (449) 27 SPRAY BOOTH INSPECTION $ 383 187' loo^/o $ 28 FIRE PROTECTION SYS EXISTING $ 135 100% 30 MUTUAL AID (FIRE) • $ $ o%o $ (449) $ 31 STATION TOURS * $ (420) $ 32 SCHOOL FIRE SAFETY" $ (873) $ 33 OPEN HOUSE • $ (1,746) $ 34 SAFETY LECTURE • $ $: $ (655) $ 35 CPR CLASS 8 HOUR • $ :o%o $ (854) 36 CPR CLASS 4 HOUR • $ O% $ (427) $ 37 P/M RESP NON -TRANSPORT• 0% $ (453) $ 38 P/M STAND-BY • $ 0% $ (292) $ $ 39 B/P SCREENING • o% $ (18) $ $ 40 ARSON/FIRE INVESTIGATION* $ (1,123) $ 41 PLAN CHECK -DEV. •• $ o%o 42 ARE CHIEF HOURLY $ $ $ 43 ADMIN ASST HOURLY 0% $ 44 CAPTAIN HOURLY $ 83 163; o%o $ $ 45 FIRE ENGINEER HOURLY $ 69 :o^io $ 46 FIREFIGHTER HOURLY $ 54 °:::106;:. % $ 47 PARAMEDIC HOURLY $ 59 $ 114:: 0% $ 48 ASST FIRE CHIEF HOURLY .15ti $ NF Non -User Fee Activities TOTALS: $ 152,768 1 $ 223,130 1 $ 70,382 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 3 - Page 2 of 2 8/2/2005 Fee # A reference number to facilitate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Quantity . The annual number of each service provided, as reported by the City Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue . The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) • Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee- payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharg • Non -User Fee Activities . These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals. Other Notes: 1 1 1 11 ' These represent non-recoverable costs which are supported by the general fund •• These costs have been calculated within the Fire Department, but allocated and analyzed within the Development Department. ••• Current revenues assume an adjusted Recoverable' volume at non-resident rates. 1 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 3 - Page 2 of 2 8/2/2005 City of Hermosa Beach, California CITYWIDE FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 4: COST RESULTS for POLICE FEES July 8, 2005 Appendices 1 1 1 1 1 City of HERMOSA BEACH USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS )LIC,E •IJNITGOST,S EVENIJE IMPACT4M*. Fee # Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Quantity Current Fee Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) Annual Quantity Annual Revenue at Current Fee Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue Annual Revenue Surplus / , (Deficit) Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) - Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cbst/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharge. 1 ALARM PERMITS 27 $ 38.00 $ 32.26 $ 5.74 $ 1,026 $ 871 $ 155 2 JAIL SVCS PROGRAM 16 $ 161.00 $ 207.00 $ (46.00) $ 2,576 $ 3,312 $ (736) 3 AMPLIFIED SOUND PERM 16 $ 45.00 $ 42.50 $ 2.50 $ 720 $ 680 $ 40 4 CLEARANCE LETTERS 20 $ 6.00 $ 43.05 $ (37.05) $ 120 $ 861 $ (741) 5 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH 46 $ 8.00 $ 24.96 $ (16.96) $ 368 $ 1,148 $ (780) 6 BICYCLE REGISTRATN 7 $ 7.00 $ 11.86 $ (4.86) $ 49 $ 83 $ (34) 7 SPEC EVENT SECURITY 817 $ 71.00 $ 90.26 $ (19.26) $ 57,985 $ • 73,714 $ (15,729) 8 VEHICLE TOWING 956 $ 45.00 $ 103.73 $ (58.73) $ 43,020 $ 99,166 $ (56,146) 9 BLOCK PRTY PERMITS 7 $ 45.00 $ 67.00 $ (22.00) $ 315 $ 469 $ (154) 10 FALSE ALRM BILLABLE 0 $ 128.00 $ 73.00 $ 55.00 $ - $ - $ - 11 FALSE ALRM NON -BILL 0 $ - $ 74.56 $ (74.56) $ - $ - $ - 17 RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR HOURLY 0 $ - $ 83.20 $ (83.20) $ - $ - $ - 18 SECRETARY HOURLY 0 $ - $ 72.40 $ (72.40) $ - $ - $ . - 19 PSO'S HOURLY 0 $ 44.00 $ 58.90 $ (14.90) $ - $ - $ - 20 SUPERV. PSO HOURLY 0 $ - $ 66.20 $ (66.20) $ - $ - $ - 21 PROP/EVID TECH HOURLY 0 $ - $ 60.30 $ (60.30) $ - $ - $ - 22 COURT LIASON HOURLY 0 $ - $ 69.00 $ (69.00) $ - $ - $ - 23 POLICE CHIEF HOURLY 0 $ - $ 152.20 $ (152.20) $ - $ - $ - 24 CAPTAIN HOURLY 0 $ - $ 141.60 $ (141.60) $ - $ $ - 25 LIEUTENANT HOURLY 0 $ - $ 126.20 $ (126.20) $ - $ - $ - 26 SERGEANT HOURLY 0 $ 81.00 $ 108.90 $ (27.90) $ - $ - $ - 27 OFFICERS HOURLY 0 $ 63.00 $ 80.60 $ (17.60) $ - $ - $ - 28 DISPATCH HOURLY 0 $ 39.00 $ 73.80 $ (34.80) $ - $ - $ - NF Non -User Fee Activities 0 $ - $ 7,242,797.00 $ (7,242,797.00) $ - $ - $ - • TOTALS: 106,179 $ 180,305 I $ (74,126)1 MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 4 - Page 1 of 2 7/8/2005 Fee # A reference number to facilitate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Quantity The annual number of each service provided, as reported by the City Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) - Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cbst/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharge. Non -User Fee Activities These represent non-recoverable costs which are supported by the general fund MAXIMUS, Inc. Appendix 4 - Page 1 of 2 7/8/2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of HERMOSA BEACH USER FEE STUDY RECOMMENDED FEE RESULTS z POLICE._ RECOMMENDEOTEESMm 14.1 REVENUE. IMPACT.SI W: ; s: Fee # Fee Service Name / Description Current Fee :.Recommended ........:.... . Recovery (of full., cost) Remaining Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) Annual Revenue at Current Fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee Potential Additional Revenue (@ Rec'd Fee) 1 ALARM PERMITS $ 38 32 100% $ 1,026 $ 871 $ (155) 2 3 JAIL SVCS PROGRAM $ 161 $i 207. 100% $ 2,576 $ 3,312 AMPLIFIED SOUND PERM $ 45 $ 43 :.100% $ 720 $ 680 $ 736 $ (40) 4 5 6 CLEARANCE LETTERS $ 6 $'' 43 100% $ 120 $ 861 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH BICYCLE REGISTRATN $ 8 $' 25. 100% $ 368 $ 1,148 $ 741 $ 780 $ 7 12 ...:100% $ 49 7 8 9 SPEC EVENT SECURITY VEHICLE TOWING $ 71 100% $ 57,985 $ 83 $ 73,714 $ 45 .104 100% $ 43,020 $ 99,166 BLOCK PRTY PERMITS $ 45 ;6 100% $ 315 $ 469 $ 34 $ 15,729 $ 56,146 $ 154 10 11 FALSE ALRM BILLABLE FALSE ALRM NON -BILL $ 128 ,i;1;73 100% 0% $ (75) $ $ 17 RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR HOURLY $y:. 83 • .100% 18 SECRETARY HOURLY $. 72 100% 19 20 21 22 23 24 PSO'S HOURLY $ 44 100% $ SUPERV. PSO HOURLY $; 66 • 100% PROP/EVID TECH HOURLY COURT LIASON HOURLY POLICE CHIEF HOURLY CAPTAIN HOURLY 60 100% $ $ $ $ ;' 69 100% $ 152 ":100% 142: ":5 100% 25 26 27 28 NF LIEUTENANT HOURLY SERGEANT HOURLY OFFICERS HOURLY 126: 100% $ $ 81 "°'`.: '109 100% $ $ $ 63 ,'''100.% $ DISPATCH HOURLY $ 39 74 :.100% Non -User Fee Activities $ $ TOTALS: I $ 106,179 1 $ 180,305 1 $ 74,126 Lcvcrvu: Fee # A reference number to facilitate discussion Fee or Service Name / Description The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study Annual Quantity The annual number of each service provided, as reported by the City Actual Unit Cost/ Potential Fee The actual cost of each service; as calculated by MAXIMUS Current Fee The current fee charged by the City for each service; if applicable Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Total Actual Annual Cost / Potential Revenue The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Annual Revenue at Current Fee The potential revenue if the City charged the Current Fee for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) The difference between the Total Annual Cost/Potential Revenue and the Annual Revenue at Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee- . payers/customers for each service, or the amount of overcharge. Non -User Fee Activities These represent non-recoverable costs which are supported by the general fund MAXIMUS, Inc Appendix 4 - Page 2 of 2 7/8/2005 ACTUAL COST RESULTS NLSI L [ MEE 1 2 3 4 5 Plus Postage Actual cost State Evidence Code Section 1560/63 - Per Person Cost for hourly rates. These items are now available on line. Recommend eliminating the fees. Recommend eliminating this fee. ' Note: All other fees on the Miscellaneous schedule will be adjusted with the annual update. TOTALS: $ 11,634 $ 22,765 $ 11,131 F:\B95\Financel\ Misc Fee Results NIT, C,QSTSRE1/ENUEIMP_ACTS Fee # Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Quantity Current Fee Actual Unit Cost / Potential Fee Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) Annual Revenue at Current Fee Actual AnnualraKK Cost / Potential Revenue Annual Revenue Surplus / (Deficit) 1 DUPLICATE BUSINESS LICENSE 10 $6.00 $3.00 $ (3) $ 60 $ 30 $ (30) 2 OCCUPANCY PERM/COMM INSPECTION 151 $52.00 . '$114.00 $ 62 $ 7,852 $ 17,214 $ 9,362 3 PUBLIC NOTICE POSTER 4 $18.00 $43.00 $ • 25 $ 72 $ 172 $ 100 4 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 4 • $214.00 $316.00 $ 102 $ 856 $ 1,264 $ 408 5 AUDIO TAPE COPIES 1 $24.00 $31.00 $ 7 $ 24 $ ' 31 $ 7 6 VIDEO TAPE COPIES 10 $27.00 $28.00 $ 1 $ 270 $ 280 $ 10 7 MAILING FEE 1 2 $2.00 $3.00 $ 1 $ 4 $ • ` 6 $ 2 8 DUPLICATE ANIMAL LICENSE 8 $2.00 $3.00 $ 1 $ 16 $ 24 $ 8 9 ANIMAL REDEMPTION - 1st Offense 40 $33.00 $41.00 $ 8 $ 1,320 $ 1,640 $ 320 ANIMAL REDEMPTION - 2nd Offense 4 $64.00 $90.00 $ 26 $ 256 $ . 360 $ 104 ANIMAL REDEMPTION - 3rd Offense 0 $97.00 $149.00 $ 52 $ - $ - $ - 10 SALE OF MAPS 2 72 $2.00 $1.00 $ . (1) $ 144 $ 72 $ (72) 11 RETURNED CHECK CHARGE 76 $10.00 $22.00 $ 12 $ 760 $ 1,672 $ 912 12 SUBPOENA RESEARCH3 PER HOUR 18 $15.00 $24.00 $ 9 $ - $ - $ - PER QUARTER HR (OR PART THEREOF) ' 0 $4.00 $6.00 $ 2 $ - . $ - $ PHOTOCOPIES - 0 $0.10 $0.10 $ - $ - $ - $ MICROFILM COPIES 0 $0.20 $0.20 $ - $ - $ - $ - OVERSIZED COPIES -ACTUAL COST 0 POSTAGE ACTUAL COST 0 13 ZONING CODE BOOK4 14 ZONING CODE ON DISK 4 . 15 ZONING SUPPLEMENT 4 16 MUNICIPAL CODE. BOOK 4 17 MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENT 4 18 LATE FEE ON INVOICES 5 i 1 2 3 4 5 Plus Postage Actual cost State Evidence Code Section 1560/63 - Per Person Cost for hourly rates. These items are now available on line. Recommend eliminating the fees. Recommend eliminating this fee. ' Note: All other fees on the Miscellaneous schedule will be adjusted with the annual update. TOTALS: $ 11,634 $ 22,765 $ 11,131 F:\B95\Financel\ Misc Fee Results RECOMMENDED FEE RESULTS w NEVOUS FEII RE„CUMMENDEDFEE3 Fee # Fee Service Name / Description Current Fee Recommended Fee Recovery; (of full cost) :.:. ! Rema l n i n g; Per Unit Surplus (Subsidy) EYENugNm1 ACIA Annual Revenue at Current Fee Potential Revenue at Rec. Fee Potential Additional Revenue (@ Rec'd Fee) 1 2 3 DUPLICATE BUSINESS LICENSE OCCUPANCY PERM/COMM INSPECTION PUBLIC NOTICE POSTER 10 151 4 $114 00: 1:00%0 100%: 100% $ 60 $ 30 $ (30) $ 7,852 $ 17,214 $ 9,362 4 5 6 7 8 9 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL AUDIO TAPE COPIES VIDEO TAPE COPIES MAILING FEE 1 $43 00;j $ 72 $ 172 $ 100 4 $316.00'. 100% $ 856 $ 1,264 $ 408 1 . $31 00 100%a $ 24 $ 31 $ 7 10 1.00%0? $ 270 $ 280 $ 10 DUPLICATE ANIMAL LICENSE . 2 $100 100%; $ 4 $ 6 $ 2 ANIMAL REDEMPTION - 1st Offense 8 .100%; $ 16 $ 24 $ 8 ANIMAL REDEMPTION - 2nd Offense ANIMAL REDEMPTION - 3rd Offense 10 11 12 SALE OF MAPS 2 40 $41 00;, $ 1,320 $ 1,640 $ 320 4 10.0% $ 256 $ 360 $ 104 0 $:149 00: 100% RETURNED CHECK CHARGE SUBPOENA RESEARCH3 72 76 ;$100;: 7!$22:16,011 100%i $ 144 $ 72 $ (72) 1.00% $' 760 $ 1,672 $ 912 PER HOUR 18 $ - PER QUARTER HR (OR PART THEREOF) PHOTOCOPIES 0 $ $ MICROFILM COPIES 0 ;.40::1:0:;: $ $ $ OVERSIZED COPIES - ACTUAL COST 0 los $ $ $ 0 POSTAGE ACTUAL COST 0 13 ZONING CODE BOOK4 14 ZONING CODE ON DISK 4 15 ZONING SUPPLEMENT 4 16 MUNICIPAL CODE BOOK 4 17 MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENT 4 18 LATE FEE ON INVOICES 5 12 3 4 5 Plus Postage Actual cost State Evidence Code Section 1560/63 - Per Person Cost for hourly rates. These items are now available on line. Recommend eliminating the fees. Recommend eliminating this fee. Note: All other fees on the Miscellaneous schedule will be adjusted with the annual update. TOTALS: I $ 11,634 I $ 22,765 I $ 11,131 F:1895\Financel\ Misc Fee Results CONNECTION FEE SCHEDULE FOR SOUTH BAY CITIES SANITATION DISTRICT USER CATEGORY UNIT OF USAGE CONNECTION FEE RESIDENTIAL Single Fan9y Home Psi 1.660.00 Condominium - No. of Drag. Units - 1,245.00 .. Multi -Unit Residential No. of Dom. Units 996.00 Mobile Horne Park No. of Space 99600 COMMERCIAL HoteIMotellRooming House No. of Rooms 78020 Ste' 1000 q fl 631.00 Supermarket' - 1000 q fl 1,627.00 Shopping Center 1000 q 11 2,639.00 Regional Mall 1000fl sq 1,494.00 Office Building 1000 sq fl 1262.00 Medical/DantawelerinacyClinic or Building 1000 q R 1,892:00 10,441.00 Restaurant 1000 g fl Indoor Theatre 1000 q R - 780.00 Cr Wash: Tunnel - No Regding 1000 q fl 23,290.00 Car Wash: Tunnel - Recycling _ - 1000 g ft 17,081.00 Cr Wash: Wand Type 1000 q fl 4,416.00 Bank/Credit Union 1000 q fl 631.00 ServicaNehide Maintenance/Repair Shop' _ 1000 sq ft 63100 Gas Station I Auto Sales 1000 q fl 63100 Animal Kennel 1000 q fl 631.00 Wholesale Outlet - 1000 q 61 631.00 Nursery/Greenhouse 1000 soft - 166.00 Warehousing' - 1000 sq ft .. - 199.00 Open Storage - 1000 q fl 199.00 Light Manufachning 1000 q fl 199.00 Lumber Yard . - 1000 eq f - - '199.00 Drive-in Theatre 1000 q 6 133.00 Club d Lodge Halls (Fraternal or Civic) 1000 sq 6 76000 Nightclub 1000 q fl 2,208.00 Bawling/Skating - 1000 q fl 1,295.00 Auditorium/Amusement 1000 waft 2,208.00 Gob Course/Park (Structures d improvements) 1000 q 11 -. 631.00 Campground/Marina/RV Perk No. 01 Sites/Slips/Spaces 382.00 Laundromat' 1000.661 24,087.00 Mortuary/Funeral Home 1000 q 11 1,096.00 Health Spa/Gym (without showers) - - 1000 g.6 1,892.00 Health Spa/Gym (wi6r showers) 1000 q fl 3,765.00. Convalescent Home No. of Beds 780.00 Convention/Fairground/Racetrack/Sports Center Average Daily Attendance - 66.00 INS11TUTJONAL CdtegelUnlveralty' Student 133.00 Private School' 1000 sq fl 1,262.00 Libnrylkeueum 1000 q R 631.00. Post Office (Loral) 1000 q fl 631.00 Post Office (Regional) 1000 sq ft 199.00 Church 1000 sq 8 315.00 INDUSTRIAL The connection fee for an industrial discharger will W calculated by the Loa Angeles County Sanitation Districts based on projected wastewater quantity and strength contained In the Application for Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge and you will be billed separately. Bakeries which sap the majority -of their products off-site and have wastewater flows ouster than 500 gallons per day are classified as industrial waste discovers. Centralized food processing facilities for distribution te supermarkets are classified as Industrial waste dischargers. Radiator shops are dassified es industrial waste dischargers: ' Warehouses which store hazardous chemicals and have floor drains era classified a Industrial waste dischargers. s Laundries Mach are not coin operated are classified es industrial waste dischargers. s Hospitals Midi provide acute care service are classified ai ndusMal ware dischargers. Senior citizen housing with individual cooking facilities ars classified under the multi -unit residential category. ' Student residences are classified as rooming houses unless individual units have separate cooking facilities In which case they are classified under the multi -unit residential category. LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' OFFICE darES AYE parr. roans CROSSROADS raver. Sarno F:IFINANCE1\Sewer Connection Fee Schedule 2005.doc 3 4 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION. NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 90-5422 (MASTER FEE RESOLUTION) TO ADD NEW FEES AND UPDATE EXISTING FEES TO RECOVER COSTS OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE WHEREAS, pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 2.64.010, it is the intent of the City Council to require the ascertainment and recovery of costs reasonably borne from fees and charges levied in providing City products or services; and WHEREAS, costs of providing City services have been determined by updating the user fee study and certain miscellaneous fees; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the fees as contained in the user fee study and finds that the fees, as set forth in the study, are justified and do not exceed the cost of providing the services. Section 2. That resolution 90-5422, Schedules 1-6, are hereby amended to include fees shown in the attached Schedules 1-5 as "Recommended Fee". (Building and Planning schedules were combined into one Community Development schedule, resulting in one less schedule) Section 3. That fees in this resolution shall take effect September 1, 2005, except for fees on Schedule 1 — Community Development, and certain fees marked with an asterisk on the attached Schedule 2 — Public Works, all of which are development -related fees and take effect 60 days after adoption, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017 (a). Schedule 1 — Community Development fees and the two fees marked with an asterisk on the attached Schedule 2 — Public Works shall take effect on November 1, 2005. F:\B95\FINANCEI\master fee reso amendment 8-9-05.doc 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 4.. All fees and charges specified in this resolution shall be administratively adjusted annually on September 1 of each year by the average negotiated changes in salaries and benefits contained in the memoranda of understanding between the City and its employee bargaining groups for the current fiscal year. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in .the minutes of the meeting in which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ninth day of August 2005. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney F:\B95\FINANCE]\master fee resp amendment 8-9-05.doc 1 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fee Service Name/Description BUILDING PERMIT/INSPECTION PLUMBING PERMIT/INSPECTION MECHANICAL PERMIT/INSPECTION ELECTRICAL PERMIT/INSPECTION PLAN CHECKING (80% OF BUILDING PERMITS) BOARD OF APPEALS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING REPORT/INSPECTION SIGN REVIEW (PERMIT) TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT APPEAL OF PC ACTION TO CC (ZONING APPEALS) ZONING VARIANCE (1) C.U.P. COMMERCIAL AMENDMENT C.U.P. - MINOR AMENDMENT C.U.P. - FENCES AND WALLS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINAL/TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION FINAL MAP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NON -CONFORMING REMODEL PARKING PLAN APPEAL OF DIRECTOR ACTION TO PC (PLANNING COMMISSION APPEALS) PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION LOT SPLIT'(TENTATIVE MAP SUBDIVISION) LOT MERGER (VOLUNTARY LOT MERGER) HEIGHT LIMIT EXCEPTION C.U.P. OTHER - COMMERCIAL BASE FEE PRIVATE TEXT AMENDMENT - ZONE CODE LEGAL DETERMINATION HEARING (2) C.U.P. - UP TO 2 UNITS (2) C.U.P. PER UNIT OVER 2 (3) 300' RADIUS (FIRST) NOTICE (3) 300' RADIUS (SECOND) NOTICE OR APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL SEWER CONNECTION FEE PERMITTED USE REQUEST Legal Authority HBMC 7-1.3 HBMC 24-2.4/7-43 HBMC 24-2.4/7-4.3 HBMC 11-2. Ord 84-762 Ord N.S. 508 Res 84-4736 Ord 77-574 Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 HBMC 29.5-12 Res 84-4735 Res 93-5634 HBMC 29.5-12 Res 84-4735 Res 90-5422 Res 84-4735 Res 84-4735 Res 88-5144 Res 89-5326 Res 85-4884 Res 90-5422 Res 90-5351 HBMC 29.5-12 Res 90-5422 Res 92-5577 Res 84-4735 Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 Res 84-4735 Res 84-4735 Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 Account Number 001-3204 001-3206 001-3206 001-3205 001-3813 001-3806 001-3801 001-3802 001-3215 001-3891 001-3808 001-3805 001-3899 001-3864 001-3803 001-3883 001-3810 001-3811 001-3884 001-3866 001-3857 Current Fee Recommended Fee* SEE VALUATION TABLE SEE SCHEDULE A SEE SCHEDULE B SEE SCHEDULE C SEE VALUATION TABLE 191.00 $ 448.00 50.00 $ 212.00 103.00 38.00 557.00 1,180.00 409.00 118.00 243.00 377.00 287.00 287.00 1,532.00 658.00 856.00 1,175.00 214.00 222.00 1,492.00 1,627.00 1,474.00 1,460.00 1,301.00 1,161.00 1,338.00 1,302.00 2,712.00 1,397.00 1,493.00 1,541.00 001-3888 $ 422.00 $ 1,396.00 001-3867 $ 1,462.00 • $ 2,260.00 001-3809 001-3887 001-3898 001-3812 001-3886 001-3870 001-3812 001-3812 001-3868 1,175.00 204.00 409.00 766.00 568.00 1,274.00 1,149.00 192.00 499.00 $ 1,719.00 $ 1,396.00 $ 1,397.00 $ 1,396.00 $ 1,642.00 $ 1,973.00 $ 1,126.00 $ 126.00 $ 499.00 001-3890 $ 225.00 $ 225.00 ADOPT LOS ANGELES COUNTY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 7/1/05 DELETE FEE, TEXT AMENDMENT FEE IS USED FOR THIS SERVICE F:\Finance' \ COMM DEV MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 1 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Legal Account Current Recommended Fee Service Name/Description Authority Number Fee Fee* COMM DEV DIRECTOR HOURLY RATE $ $ 126.00 SR BLDG INSPECTOR HOURLY RATE $ 67.00 $ '80.00 BUILDING INSPECTOR HOURLY RATE $ 63.00 $ 58.00 CITY PLANNER HOURLY RATE $ $ 82.00 ASSOCIATE PLANNER HOURLY RATE $ $ 74.00 PLANNING ASSISTANT HOURLY RATE $ $ 59.00 CLERICAL HOURLY RATE $ $ 55.00 CODE ENF OFFICER HOURLY RATE $ 53.00 $ 53.00 ROUNDING CRITERIA (EFFECTIVE 9/1/97): IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.50 OR LESS ROUND DOWN TO NEAREST DOLLAR; IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.51 OR MORE, ROUND 2 TO NEAREST DOLLAR. * ALL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES WILL TAKE EFFECT ON NOVEMBER 1, 2005 (1) AMENDMENT OF EXISTING ACTIVITY OR AMORTIZATION OF EXISTING GRANDFATHERED ACTIVITY (2) FEES PREVIOUSLY LISTED AS C.U.P. CONDO - 2 UNITS; C.U.P. CONDO - 4 UNITS & C.U.P. CONDO - 8+ UNITS (3) FEE IS ACTUAL COST OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FEE SERVICE NAMES IN PARENTHESES REPRESENT FEE NAMES THAT WERE CHANGED FROM THE PREVIOUS MASTER FEE SCHEDULES. F:\Flnancel\ COMM DEV MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH UPDATED VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE (Based on FY 02-03 User Fee Study Results) �J Epsl��`','`��r� �i`'�E E f � �� `�:'.,�-5"F`--. "��• "`n�`. �' s i .4 EES . `� a t - -� i '" NN�� a ., �•��a-- eE ''_... ,fir _ ,� pti� f•..,;�,Ty y `�i'a J d, iCURRE r Recommended ., _ °., Y GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT FEES - VALUATION THRESHOLD BASE FEE INCREMENT PER $100 INCREMENT PER $1,000 BASE FEE INCREMENT PER $100 INCREMENT PER $1,000 $1 - 500 $ 28.00 $ - $ 35.84 $ - $501 - 2,000 $ 28.00 $ 4.50. $ - $ 35.84 $ 5.76 $ - $2,001 - 25,000 $ 95.50 $ 17.50 $ 122.24 $ 22.40 $25,001 - 50,000 $ 498.00 $ 13.25 $ 637.44 $ 16.96 $50,001 - 100,000 $ 829.25 $ 8.75 $ 1,061.44 $ 11.20 $100,001 AND UP $ 1,266.75 $ 7.25 $ 1,621.44 $ 9.28 PLAN CHECK = 80% OF PERMIT FEE - CITY % . 57% of Plan Check Fee 66% of Plan Check Fee PLAN CHECK = 80% OF PERMIT FEE - CONTRACTOR 0/0 . 43% of Plan Check Fee 34% of Plan Check Fee F:\B95\Financel\HERMOSA - UPDATED VAL SCHED 4-25-05 /1 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE A - PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Fee Service Name/Description Current Recommended Fee Fee EACH PLUMBING FIXTURE, TRAP, OR SET OF FIXTURES ON $9.00 $15.00 ONE TRAP (INCLUDING WATER, DRAIN PIPING & BACKFLOW PROTECTION) EACH BUILDING SEWER OR TRAILER PARK SEWER $27.00 $46.00 RAINWATER SYSTEM PER DRAIN (INSIDE BUILDING) $9.00 $15.00 EACH WATER HEATER AND/OR VENT $11:00 $19.00 EACH PIPING SYSTEM OF 1 TO 5 OUTLETS $11.00 $19.00 EACH GAS OUTLET OVER 5 $2.00 $3.00 EACH INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRE-TREATMENT INTERCEPTOR INCLUDING TRAP & VENT (EXCEPTING KITCHEN -TYPE GREASE INTERCEPTORS FUNCTIONING AS FIXTURE TRAPS) $21.00 $36.00 EACH INSTALLATION, ALTERATION OR REPAIR OF WATER PIPING AND/OR WATER TREATING EQUIPMENT EACH REPAIR OR ALTERATION OF DRAINAGE OR VENT PIPING EACH LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM ON ANY ONE METER INCLUDING BACKFLOW PROTECTION DEVICES): ATMOSPHERIC -TYPE VACUUM BREAKERS (NOT INCLUDING ABOVE): 1T05 OVER 5, EACH $5.00 $8.00 $5.00 $8.00 $15.00 $25.00. $11.00 $2.00 $19.00 $3.00 EACH BACKFLOW PROTECTIVE DEVICE (OTHER THAN ATMOSPHERIC- TYPE VACUUM BREAKERS): 2 INCHES AND SMALLER $11.00 $19.00 OVER 2 INCHES $27.00 $46.00 F: \B95\Financel\PLMB 2002 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE A - PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Fee Service Name/Description FIRE SPRINKLER PIPING SYSTEM: 1 TO 10 HEADS 11 TO 25 HEADS 26 TO 50 HEADS 51 TO 100 HEADS 101 TO 200 HEADS 201 TO 300 HEADS' 301 TO 500 HEADS 501 TO 1000 HEADS 1001 OR MORE HEADS FEE FOR ISSUING EACH PERMIT SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUANCE FEE ROUNDING CRITERIA (EFFECTIVE 9/1/97) IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.50 OR LESS - ROUND DOWN TO NEAREST DOLLAR; IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.51 OR MORE ROUND UP TO NEAREST DOLLAR. Current Recommended Fee Fee $11.00 $19.00 $31.00 $44.00 $68.00 $94.00 $120.00 $157.00 $235.00 $338.00 $19.00 $32.00 $53.00 $75.00 $116.00 $160.00 $204.00 $267.00 $399.00 $575.00 $27.00 $46.00 $7.00 $12.00 F:\B95\Financel\PLMB 2002 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE B - MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Current Recommended Fee Service Name/Description Fee • Fee HEATING, VENTILATIONS, AIR CONDITIONING OR REFRIGERATION FORCED -AIR OR GRAVITY -TYPE FURNACE (INCLUDING CUTS AND VENTS) UP TO 100,000 BTU $15.00 $28.00 OVER 100,000 BTU $19.00 $36.00 FLOOR FURNACE $15.00 $28.00 HEATER - SUSPENDED, RECESSED, WALL OR FLOOR MOUNTED $15.00 $28.00 GAS PIPING SYSTEM OF 1 TO 4 OUTLETS $11.00 $21.00 GAS PIPING SYSTEM OF 5 OR MORE OUTLETS, PER OUTLET $2.00 $4.00 APPLIANCE VENT - ONLY $7.00 $13.00 BOILER - UP TO 3 HP OR 100,000 BTU $15.00 $28.00 COMPRESSOR - 3 TO 15 HP OR 100,001 TO 500,000 BTU $29.00 $55.00 ABSORPTION - 15 TO 30 HP OR 500,001 TO 1,000,000 BTU $38.00 $72.00 SYSTEM - 30 TO 50 HP OR 1,000,000 TO 1,750,000 BTU OVER 50 HP OR OVER 1,750,000 BTU AIR HANDLING UNITS INCLUDING DUCTS - UNDER 10,000 C.F.M. OVER 10,000 C.F.M. $58.00 $110.00 $96.00 $181.00 $10.00 $19.00 $19.00 $36.00 EVAPORATIVE COOLER (NON-PORTABLE) $10.00 $19.00 VENT FAN / SINGLE DUCT $7.00 $13.00 MECHANICAL VENT $10.00 $19.00 MECHANICAL EXHAUST HOOD $10.00 $19.00 DOMESTIC -TYPE INCINERATOR $19.00 $36.00 COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL INCINERATOR $77.00 $146.00 ) LF F:B95\Financel\MECH 2002 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE B - MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Current Recommended Fee Service Name/Description Fee Fee REPAIR, ALTER, OR ADDITION TO EACH HEATING APPLIANCE, REFRIGERATION UNIT, COMFORT COOLING UNIT, OR SYSTEM (INCLUDING CONTROLS) $15.00 $28.00 ANY EQUIPMENT REGULATED (BUT NOT INCLUDED ABOVE) $10.00 $19.00 FEE FOR ISSUING EACH PERMIT $27.00 $51.00 SUPPLEMENTAL PERMIT $7.00 $13.00 ROUNDING CRITERIA (EFFECTIVE 9/1/97): IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.50 OR LESS - ROUND DOWN TO NEAREST DOLLAR; IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.51 OR MORE - ROUND uf TO NEAREST DOLLAR. F:B95\FInancel\MECH 2002 /5- MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE C - ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Current Recommended Fee Service. Name/Description Fee Fee NEW GENERAL USE BRANCH CIRCUITS RATING, TYPE OR USE OF BRANCH CIRCUITS FEE FOR EACH BRANCH CIRCUIT 15 OR 20 AMP, 120V LIGHTING OR GENERAL USE RECEPTACLE, DWELLING APPLIANCES 15 TO 50 AMPS, NON -DWELLING MOTORS OR APPLIANCES SUPPLYING LOADS NOT EXCEEDING 3 HP OR KVA 1. 1 TO 10 BRANCH CIRCUITS 2. 11 TO 40 BRANCH CIRCUITS 3. 41 OR MORE BRANCH CIRCUITS 4. 15 OR 20 AMP 208V TO 277V LIGHTING 5. ALL OTHER LIGHTING BRANCH CIRCUIT 600V OR LESS $15.00 $13.00 $11.00 $21.00 $24.00 $17.00 $14.00 $12.00 $23.00 $27.00 FEES FOR ADDING OUTLETS (TO EXISTING BRANCH CIRCUITS) OR TEMPORARY LIGHTS & YARD LIGHTING NUMBER OF OUTLETS OR LAMPHOLDERS 1. 1 TO 5 INCLUSIVE 2. 6 TO 10 INCLUSIVE 3. FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 10 OUTLETS OR FRACTION THEREOF 4. 50 OR LESS LAMPHOLDERS, TOTAL FEE 5. 51 TO 100 LAMPHOLDERS, TOTAL FEE 6. EACH 100 LAMPHOLERS OR FRACTION THEREOF OVER 100 $17.00, $23.00 $9.00 $11.00 $27.00 $11.00 $19.00 $26.00 $10.00 $12.00 $30.00 $12.00 FEES FOR MOTORS, TRANSFORMERS, HEATING APPLIANCES, AND MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT OR APPLIANCES H.P., K.W., OR K.V.A. RATING OF EQUIPMENT 1. OVER 3 AND NOT OVER 5 2. OVER 5 AND NOT OVER 20 3. OVER 20 AND NOT OVER 50 4. OVER 50 AND NOT OVER 100 5. OVER 100 $16.00 $27.00 $38.00 $84.00 $128.00 $18.00 $30.00 $42.00 $93.00 $142.00 F:\B95\Financel\ELEC 2002 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE C - ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Current Recommended Fee Service Name/Description Fee Fee FEES FOR REQUIRED FIRE WARNING, COMMUNICATIONS AND EMERGENCY CONTROL SYSTEMS 1. UP TO 50 DEVICES $27.00 $30.00 2. 51 TO 100 DEVICES $50.00 $55.00 3. 101 TO 200 DEVICES $77.00 $85.00 4. 201 TO 300 DEVICES $103.00 $114.00 5. 300 TO 500 DEVICES $128.00 $142.00 6. OVER 500 DEVICES $152.00 $169.00 7. EACH CONTROL PANEL, STANDBY POWER PANEL, ANNUNCIATOR PANEL, OR SIMILAR MAIN PIECE OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT $27.00 $30.00 FEES FOR SERVICE AND SWITCHBOARD SECTIONS AMPACITY AND VOLTAGE RATINGS OF SERVICE ENTRANCE CONDUCTORS, SERVICES SWITCHES OR CIRCUIT BREAKERS OR SWITCHBOARD SECTIONS 1. 200 AMP OR LESS RATINGS - 600V OR LESS 2. 201 TO (AND INCLUDING) 600 AMP - 600V OR LESS 3. OVER 600 AMP - 600V OR LESS 4. OVER 600V RATINGS 5. TEMPORARY POWER POLE $16.00 $34.00 $68.00 $128.00 $16.00 $18.00 $38.00 $75.00 $142.00 $18.00 MISCELLANEOUS: FEE FOR ISSUING EACH PERMIT FEE FOR ISSUING EACH SUPPLEMENTAL PERMIT $27.00 $30.00 $7.00 $8.00 ROUNDING CRITERIA (EFFECTIVE 9/1/97): IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.50 OR LESS - ROUND DOWN TO NEAREST DOLLAR; IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.51 OR MORE - ROUND UP TO NEAREST DOLLAR. F:\B95\Finances\ELEC 2002 / 7 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE 2 - PUBLIC WORKS Fee Service Name/Description BANNER PERMIT (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) (1) STREET EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION (1) STREET EXCAVATION/UTILITY COMPANY SEWER PERMIT LATERAL DEMOLITION SEWER PERMIT ENCROACHMENT FILING FEE (2) MISC USE PERMIT (STRAND PERMIT & DUMPSTER DROP/LUMBER DROP) UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - per 250 If SIDEWALK PROCESSING FEE LIEN AGREEMENT SIDEWALK PROCESSING SPECIAL CURB MARKING - SURVEY SPECIAL CURB MARKING t INSTALLATION BEACH VOLLEYBALL APPLICATION WALK STREET PARKING FEE CASH DEPOSIT/WORK GUARANTEE NEWSRACK PERMIT (3) COMM OUTSIDE DINING PERMIT (COMMERCIAL OUTLETS DINING ENCROACHMENT) (4) BLUEPRINT COPIES (5) LIBRARY GENERAL MAINTENANCE (6) HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR HOURLY RATE SUPERINTENDENT HOURLY RATE ASSISTANT ENGINEER HOURLY RATE ASSOCIATE ENGINEER HOURLY RATE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOURLY RATE CLERK TYPIST HOURLY RATE CREW LEADER HOURLY RATE MAINTENANCE II HOURLY RATE MAINTNENANCE T HOURLY RATE SENIOR EQUIPMENT MECHANIC HOURLY RATE EQUIPMENT MECHANIC HOURLY RATE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR HOURLY SWEEPER OPERATOR HOURLY Legal Account Current Authority Number Fee Recommeded Fee Memo 6/84 001-3211 $ 236.00 $ 418.00 Ord 84-762 001-3831 $ 185.00 $ 181.00 Ord 84-762 001-3831 $ 147.00 $ 264.00 Dept Policy 160-3832 $ 191.00 $ 203.00 * 160-3829 $ 191.00 $ 130.00 * Res 88-5202 001-3834 $ 365.00 $ 228.00 Res 79-4303 & 79-4304 001-3815 $ 51.00 $ 96.00 001-3816 $ $ 174.00 DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE DELETE FEE, NO LONGER CHARGING FOR SERVICE DELETE FEE, NO LONGER CHARGING FOR SERVICE DELETE FEE, FEE SET BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED DELETE FEE, FEE SET BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED 001-2110 DEPENDS ON PROJECT SCOPE Res 00-6096 001-3219 $ ' 17.00 $ 17.00 CC Act 5/88 001-3834 $ 357.00 $ 398.00 Res 82-4500 001-3838 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 Ord 84-762 001-3827 $ 9,826.00 $ 9,826.00 Ord 84-762 001-3507 $ 1,864.00 $ 1,864.00 90-5422 $ 120.00 $ 152.00 90-5422 $ 82.00 $ .98.00 $ $ 73.00 $ $ 83.00 $ $ 65.00 $ - $ 56.00 90-5422 $ 68.00 $ 72.00 90-5422 $ 52.00 $ 54.00 90-5422 $ 40.00 $ 47.00 $ $ 73.00 $ $ 52.00 $ $ 72.00 DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE ROUNDING CRITERIA (EFFECTIVE 9/1/97): IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.50 OR LESS - ROUND DOWN TO NEAREST DOLLAR. IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.51 OR MORE - ROUND UP TO NEAREST DOLLAR. * THESE FEES WILL TAKE EFFECT ON NOVEMBER 1, 2005 (1) ESTIMATED PROJECT VALUES OVER $5,000 ARE BASED ON TIME AND MATERIAL COSTS (2) PLUS $12.00 PER DAY PER PARKING SPACE (3) SEE MISC SCHEDULE FOR QUARTERLY FEE (4) ACTUAL COST CHARGED BY VENDOR (5) CONTRACT WITH COUNTY (6) MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY STATE CONTRACT FEE SERVICE NAMES IN PARENTHESES REPRESENT FEE NAMES THAT WERE CHANGED FROM THE PREVIOUS MASTER FEE SCHEDULES. F:\B95\Flnancel\ PUB WKS MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 2 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE 3 - FIRE DEPARTMENT Fee or Service Name/Description (1) PARAMEDIC RESPONSE/TRANSPORT, RESIDENT (1) PARAMEDIC RESPONSE/TRANSPORT, NON-RESIDENT (2) COMMERCIAL BLDG/APT RE -INSPECTION AUTO REPAIR PERMIT (ANNUAL) SPRAY BOOTH PERMIT (ANNUAL) OPEN FIRE PERMIT ANNUAL ALARM SYSTEM INSPECTION UNDERGROUND TANK INSPECTION LOCK -OUT (CAR) LOCK -OUT (HOUSE). FLOODING WATER REMOVAL SPRAY BOOTH INSPECTION (ANNUAL) (3) FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM, EXISTING SPRINKLER CERTIFICATION TEST (5 YEARS) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE (ANNUAL) FIRE REPORT COPIES FIRE CHIEF HOURLY RATE ADMIN ASSISTANT HOURLY RATE (4) CAPTAIN HOURLY RATE (4) ENGINEER HOURLY RATE (4) FIREFIGHTER HOURLY RATE (4) PARAMEDIC HOURLY RATE ASST FIRE CHIEF HOURLY RATE Legal Authority Res 95-5749 " Res 95-5749 Unif Fire Code 103.3 Unif Fire Code 105.8 (r)(3) Res 90-5422 HBMC 15.20.070 (C1102.3.9) Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 Govt Code Sec 6253 Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 ROUNDING CRITERIA (EFFECTIVE 9/1/97): IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.50 OR LESS - ROUND DOWN TO NEAREST DOLLAR; IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.51 OR MORE - ROUND TO NEAREST DOLLAR. (1) APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON 6/14/05 (2) FIRST AND RE -INSPECTION FREE, FEE APPLIED TO EACH INSPECTION THEREAFTER (3) FIRST AND RE -INSPECTION FREE, FEE APPLIED TO EACH INSPECTION THEREAFTER (4) HOURLY RATES USED FOR SPECIAL EVENTS/FILMING, ETC. Account Number Current Fee Recommended Fee 001-3840 $ 271.00 $ 773.00 001-3840 $ 541.00 $ 773.00 001-3878 $ 224.00 $ 253.00 001-3218 $ 74.00 $ 253.00 001-3216 $ 19.00 $ 27.00 001-3217 $ 55.00 $ 76.00 001-3891 $ - $ 85.00 001-3892 $ - $ 170.00 DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE 001-3875 $ 383.00 $ 187.00 001-3876 $ 135.00 $ 56.00 DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE 001-3839 $ 0.10 $ 83.00 $ 69.00 $ 54.00 $ 59.00 $ 0.10 180.00 83.00 163.00 137.00 106.00 114.00 158.00 F:\B95\Financel\ FIRE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 3 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE 4 - POLICE DEPARTMENT Fee Service Name/Description ALARM PERMITS JAIL SERVICES PROGRAM, PER DAY AMPLIFIED SOUND PERMIT CLEARANCE LETTERS POLICE PHOTOGRAPH BICYCLE REGISTRATION SPECIAL EVENT SECURITY (PER OFFICER PER HOUR) VEHICLE TOWING BLOCK PARTY PERMITS -- FALSE ALARM RESPONSE BILLABLE (AFTER 3 PER CALENDAR YEAR) FINGERPRINT SERVICES VEHICLE INSPECTION, NON-RESIDENT TRUSTEE ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM TAXICAB FRANCHISE (TAXICAB PERMITS) FINGERPRINTS/TAXICABS TAXICAB ID CARD ACCIDENT REPORT -TRAFFIC INCIDENT REPORT PROCESSING CRIME REPORT (1) REPOSSESSION REPORT FEE RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR HOURLY RATE SECRETARY HOURLY RATE POLICE SVCS OFFICER HOURLY RATE PSO SUPERVISOR HOURLY RATE PROP/EVID TECH HOURLY RATE COURT LIASON HOURLY RATE POLICE CHIEF HOURLY RATE CAPTAIN HOURLY RATE LIEUTENANT HOURLY RATE SERGEANT HOURLY RATE OFFICER HOURLY RATE DISPATCH HOURLY RATE ROUNDING CRITERIA (EFFECTIVE 9/1/97): IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.50 OR LESS - ROUND DOWN TO NEAREST DOLLAR. IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.51 OR MORE ROUNDISP TO NEAREST DOLLAR. Legal Authority HBMC 17-55.14 Ord 84-762 HBMC 19.521 CC Act 8/85 Dept Policy CC Act 8/85 HBMC 19.521 HBMC 17-55.14 Ord 84-762 Govt Code Sec 6253 Govt Code Sec 6253 Govt Code Sec 6253 AB1972-Jan 94 NEW NEW Res 90-5422 NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 Res 90-5422 Account - Current Recommended Number Fee Fee 001-3862 ' $ 38.00 $ 001-3819 $ 161.00 $ 001-3214 $ 45.00 $ 001-3818 $ 6.00 $ 001-3818 $ 8.00 $ 001-3203 $ 7.00 $ 001-3823 $ 71.00 $ 001-3841 $ 45.00 $ 001-3214 $ 45.00 •$ 32.00 207.00 43.00 43.00 25.00 12.00 90.00 104.00 67.00 001-3863 $ 128.00 $ 73.00 DELETE FEE, NO LONGER PROVIDING THIS SERVICE DELETE FEE, NO LONGER CHARGING FEE 001-3820 ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST REMOVE FROM SCHEDULE, NOW FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS REMOVE FROM,SCHEDULE, NOW FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS REMOVE FROM SCHEDULE, NOW FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS 001-3818 001-3818 001-3818 001-3818 0.10 $ 0.10 0.10 $ 0.10 0.10 $ 0.10 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 83.00 $ 72.00 44.00 $ 59.00 $ 66.00 $ 60.00 $ 69.00 $ 152.00 $ 142.00 $ 126.00 81.00 $ 109.00 63.00. $ 81.00 39.00 $ 74.00 (1) LOCAL AGENCY REQUIRED TO COLLECT FEES TO OFFSET COST OF ENTERING INFORMATION TO CLETS SYSTEM. F:\B95\F(nancel\ POLICE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 4 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE 5 - MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENTAL FEES Fee Service Name/Description Legal Authority PRINTED: 08/01/05 Account Number Recommended Fee Current Fee BUSINESS LICENSE GARAGE/YARD SALES BINGO PERMITS DUPLICATE BUS LICENSE OCCUPANCY PERMIT/COMMERCIAL INSPECTION CITY CLERK PUBLIC NOTICE POSTER APPEAL TO COUNCIL AUDIO TAPE COPIES VIDEO TAPE COPIES PHOTOCOPIES -PER PAGE MAILING FEE (PLUS POSTAGE) ZONING CODE BOOK ZONING CODE ON DISC SUPPLEMENT, ZONING MUNICIPAL CODE BOOK SUPPLEMENT, MUNICIPAL Ord 82-682 HBMC 13-15 Ord 82-682 Unif Fire Code Sec 103.3 Res.78-4239 Exec Order Res 82-4515 Govt Code Sec 6253 001-3209 001-3210 001-3115 001-3207 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ 66.00 $ 66.00 $ 3.00 $ 6.00 $ 114.00 $ 50.00 001-3825 001-3814 001-3839 001-3839 $ 43.00 $ 17.00 $ 316.00 $ 206.00. $ 31.00 $ 23.00 $ 28.00 $ 26.00 0.10 $ 0.10 001-3839 $ 001-3896 $ 3.00 $ 2.00 DELETE FEE, ITEMS NOW AVAILABLE ON UNE DELETE FEE, ITEMS NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE DELETE FEE, ITEMS NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE DELETE FEE, ITEMS NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE DELETE. FEE, ITEMS NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE COMMUNITY RESOURCES LEASE RATES (Not Subject to Rounding) SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS: ***COMMERCIAL GROUPS*** PUBLIC/OUTDOOR/MISC FACILITIES STILL PHOTOGRAPHY, PERMIT STILL PHOTO, LOCATION FEE FILMING, LOC FEE/DAY FILMING, PERMIT FILMING, PARKING/METER ***NON-PROFIT GROUPS*** PUBLIC/OUTDOOR/MISC FACILITIES CITY 'PASS THRUS' FUNDRAISING/PARKS RESIDENT BLOCK PARTIES AMPLIFIED SOUND PERMIT (Same as Police Schedule) THEATER STAFF: HOUSE MANAGER HOURLY RATE LIGHT TECHNICIAN HOURLY RATE SOUND TECHNICIAN HOURLY RATE TENANT/USERS UAB INS PROG (TULIP) Res 01-6170 Res 89-5327 Res 91-5475 Res 02-6215 Res 94-5659 001-3404 $ 1.20 $ 1.20 001-3418 $ 1,986.00 $ 1,986.00 001-3418 $ 66.00 $ 66.00 001-3418 $ 66.00 $ . 66.00 001-3418 $ 927.00 $ 927.00 001-3418 $ 397.00 $ 397.00 001-3842 $ 18.00 $ 18.00 001-3418 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 001-3418 $ 133.00 $ 133.00 001-3418 $ 33.00 $ 33.00 001-3418 $ 33.00 $ 33.00 001-3214 $ 43.00 $ 47.00 001-3406 $ 15.00 001-3406 $ 20.00 001-3406 $ 20.00 001-3897 $ • 11.00 $ 11.00 F:\B95\Financel\ MISC MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 5 MASTER FEE RESOLUTION SCHEDULE 5 - MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENTAL FEES Fee Service Name/Description Legal Authority PRINTED: 08/01/05 Account Number Recommended Fee Current Fee FINANCE DOG LICENSES DOG LICENSE, NEUTERED DUPLICATE DOG LICENSE CAT LICENSES CAT LICENSE, NEUTERED CAT, LOST TAG CAT, CHANGE OWNER CAT, CHANGE, NEUTERED ANIMAL/FOWL, PERMIT . J ANIMAL/FOWL, APPEAL ANIMAL REDEMPTION FEE SECOND OFFENSE • THIRD OFFENSE PARKING PERMIT, ANNUAL PARKING PERMIT, REPLACEMENT PARKING PERMIT, EMPLOYEES PARKING PERMIT, DAILY. PARKING PERMIT, DRIVEWAY PARKING PERMIT, GUEST PARKING PERMIT, CONTRACTOR HBMC 4-11 HBMC4-40 001-3202 001-3202 001-3202 001-3202 001-3202 001-3202 001-3202 001-3202 HBMC 4-4 001-3212 HBMC 4-4.1 001-3212 1ST OFFENSE Ord 84-774 001-3213 001-3213 001-3213 Res 88-5162 110-3843 Res 82-4524 110-3843 CC ACTION 110-3843 110-3844 HBMC 19-61.1 110-3848 Res 85-4793 110-3849 Res 86-4962 110-3850 BOOT RELEASE FEE (Same as Towing Fee on Police Schedule) 001-3841 PARKING METER RATES ' Res 01-6138 110-3842 PARKING LOT RATES Res 01-6138 109-3844 . PARKING STRUCTURE RATES Res 01-6138 109-3846 REFUSE ENCLOSURE EXCEPTION Res 92-5579 001-3865 REFUSE LIEN FEE Res 87-5024 001-3807 (1) SALE OF MAPS Res 82-4500 001-3838 RETURNED CHECKS Govt Code Sec 6157 001-3837 LATE FEE ON INVOICES RECOMMEND ELIMINATING THIS FEE SUBPOENA RESEARCH St Evid Code Sec 1560/63 001-3839 $ 24.00 $ 15.00 RESEARCH, PER QTR HR (OR PART THEREOF) 001-3839 $ 6.00 $ 4.00 RESEARCH, XEROX COPIES 001-3839 $ . 0.10 $ 0.10 RESEARCH, MICROFILM 001-3839 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 OVERSIZED COPIES 001-3839 ACTUAL COST POSTAGE 001-3839 ACTUAL COST COMM. OUTDOOR DINING QUARTERLY FEE Res 00-6081 001-3834 $ 2.00/Sq. Ft. $ 2.00/Sq. Ft. $ 24.00 $ 10.00 $ 3.00 11.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 11.00 $ 6.00 $ 66.00 $ 66.00 $ 41.00 $ 90.00 $ 149.00 $ 33.00 $ 3.00 $ 60.00 $ 6.00 $ 36.00 $ 1.00 $ 28.00 $ 104.00 $ 1.00/per hr $ 1.00/per hr $ 1.00/per hr N/A $ 11.00 $ 1.00 $ 22.00 $ 24.00 $ 10.00 $ 2.00 $ 11.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 11.00 $ 6.00 $ 66.00 $ 66.00 32.00 $ 62.00 $ 94.00 $ 33.00 $ 3.00 $ 60.00 $ 6.00 $ 36.00 $ 1.00 $ 28.00 $ 47.00 $ 1.00/per hr $ 1.00/per hr $ 1.00/per hr N/A $ 11.00 $ 2.00 $ 10.00 ROUNDING CRITERIA (EFFECTIVE 9/1/97): IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.50 OR LESS - ROUND DOWN TO NEAREST DOLLAR. IF NEW FEE ACTUAL IS $.51 OR MORE - ROUND UP TO NEAREST DOLLAR. (1) ACTUAL COST PER VENDOR F:\B95\Flnancel\ MISC MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 5 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BAIL SCHEDULE FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS TO'INCLUDE A $15 FINE FOR CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 400226 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City requests the judges of the Southwest Superior Court to enact the attached bail schedule (Exhibit "A") for parking violations of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, which was amended to include Section 40226 (Failure to Display Disabled Placard: Administrative Charge) with a $15 fine amount. SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of August, 2005. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney F:\B95\FINANCEI\Bail Schedule Reso 8-9-05.DOC Exhibit A CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • PARKING VIOLATION BAIL SCHEDULE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODES 10.08.'040 Interference with Officer $35.00 10.12.020 Driving on Sidewalk $35.00 10.12.040 Private Property $35.00 10.12.070 Washing/Polishing Vehicle on Public Streets or Parking Lot $35.00 10.12.080 Repairing Vehicle on Public Streets or Parking Lot $35.00 10.16.060 Posted One -Way $35.00 10.28.060 Red Zone $35.00 10.28.060, White or Yellow Zone $35.00 10.28.100 Stopped in Alley $35.00 10.28.130. Taxicab Stands $35.00 10.32.070 Posted No Parking $35.00 10.32.070 Street Sweeper $25.00 10.32.090 No Stopping Zone $35.00 10.32.100 Left Side of One -Way Street $35.00 10.32.110 Angle Parking $35.00 10.32.120 Parked Over 72 Hours $35.00 10.32.130 Parked for Demonstrating $35.00 10.32.140 Parking on Hills $35.00 10.32.160 Parking on Narrow Streets $35.00 10.32.230 Parking Commercial Vehicles in Residential District Detached Treilr $35.00 $35.0G 10.32.240 10.32.250 Green Curb Markings $35.00 10.32.260 Time Limit Parking $35.00 10.32.260 Expired Meter $35.00 10.32.280 Parking Space Markings $35.00 10.32.290 Limitation on Number of Vehicles Per Marked Stall $35.00 10.32.310 Parking or Standing on City Property $35.00 10.36.080 Time Limit Parking in Metered Stall $35.00 10.36.090 Defacing or Injuring Meters $35.00 10.36.110 Parking meter zones established,15-minute spaces specified. $35.00 CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODES 21211 (B) Blocking Bike Path $25.00 22500 (A) No Parking in Intersection $30.00 22500 (B) No Parking in Crosswalk $30.00 22500 (C) No Parking Safety Zone $30.00 22500 (D) No Parking Near Fire Station $30.00 22500 (E) Blocking Driveway $30.00 22500 (F) Blocking Sidewalk $30.00 22500 (G) Parked Blocking -Traffic $30.00 22500 (H) Double Parked $30.00 22500 (I) No Parking Bus Zone $250.00 22500 (L) Blocking Wheelchair Access $250.00 4000A Registration Required $52.00 4152.5 Expired Out of State Registration $22.00 5200 Display of Plates $76.00 5201 Position of Plates $76.00 5204 Display of Tabs $76.00 22500.1 Fire Lane $55.00 22502 . Curb Parking $25.00 22507.8 Handicap Zone $330.00 22514 Fire Hydrant $30.00 22515 Unattended Vehicle $25.00 22522 Sidewalk. Access Ramp $275.00 27155 Fuel Tank Cap $30.00 40226 Failure to Display Disabled Placard: Administrative Charge $15.00 f/b95/financel/bailschedule 08-09-05