Brisbane City Council
May 21, 2026

Description of Improvements
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 17
Living Area The units generally feature average quality living room finishes relative to typical units in similar walk up buildings in the area. The units typically contain vinyl plank and carpet flooring, and sheet rock walls.

Residential Unit Distribution Summary
Unit Type No. of Units Avg. SF/Unit Total Leasable SF
1 BR 120% AMI 3 696 2,089
1 BR 30% AMI 3 694 2,083
1 BR 50% AMI 1 695 695
1 BR 60% AMI 5 726 3,632
2 BR 120% AMI 1 833 833
2 BR 60% AMI 1 833 833
Totals/Average 14 726 10,165
Condition, Deferred Maintenance & Remaining Economic Life Condition
Based on our inspection, the subject is in average condition. The subject was constructed in 2000 and adequately maintained over the years.

Deferred Maintenance
No Property Condition Report was given in conjunction with this appraisal.

The subject is in average condition. During our visit to the building, we noticed no significant items of deferred maintenance.

Remaining Economic Life
While the improvements were originally constructed in 2000 and adequately maintained over the years, we estimate the effective age to be 20 years; given a useful life of 50 years, the remaining economic life of the building is estimated as 30 years.

Summary
The subject was constructed in 2000 and adequately maintained over the years. Based on our inspection, the subject is in average condition. The building features a functional design with typical site coverage. No significant functional obsolescence was noted during our inspection. The layout, site coverage of the improvements and positioning of the improvements as well as the construction quality of the improvements, interior layout, building mechanicals, building-wide and unit amenities and finishes are functional by market standards.

ATTACHMENT 6

Description of Improvements
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 18
Floor Plans
Floor Plans Floor Plans
Floor Plans Floor Plans
Floor Plans Floor Plans
ATTACHMENT 6

Description of Improvements
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 19
Floor Plans
ATTACHMENT 6

Submarket Analyses
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 20
Submarket Analyses
Daly City/Brisbane: Multifamily Submarket Analysis
The information contained in this report was provided using 2025 Q3 CoStar data for the Daly City/Brisbane Multifamily Submarket ("Submarket") located in the San Francisco Market ("Market").

Overview
The subject property is in the Daly City/Brisbane Submarket of the San Francisco Market, defined in the map above.

This Submarket accounts for 4.1% of the Markets total inventory with 7.8k units. In the Daly City/Brisbane Submarket, demand remains strong with vacancy rates down yoy and over the past quarter, decreasing -163 bps yoy to 1.6%.

Despite this, rents are up 4.19% over the past year, increasing 1.44% in the latest quarter. Despite positive fundamentals, values decreased -1.5% over the past year after negative growth in the latest quarter, ultimately decreasing to $426,483/unit.

Sector Fundamentals
Daly City/Brisbane YoY QoQ
San
Francisco YoY QoQ
Market Rent/Unit $2,629 4.19% 1.44% $3,302 6.33% 0.92%
Vacancy Rate 1.64% -163 bps -61 bps 4.39% -164 bps -44 bps Net Absorption Units 47 30.6% 571.4% 1,012 20.8% -11.5% Asset Value/Unit $426,483 -1.5% -0.8% $527,529 0.1% 0.3% Market Cap Rate 4.37% 9 bps 1 bps 4.55% 4 bps -1 bps
Transaction Count 2 100% 100% 65 18% -54%
Sales Volume $16,056,000 703% 173% $621,298,112 33% -22% ATTACHMENT 6

Submarket Analyses
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 21
The table below presents historical performance of key indicators for multifamily space in the Submarket including inventory & construction levels, net absorption, vacancy & availability, rental rates, pricing, and cap rates.

Historical Multifamily Performance: Daly City/Brisbane Submarket Period
Inventory
Units
Under
Construction
Units
Net
Delivered
Units 12
Mo
Absorption
Units 12 Mo
Vacancy
Rate
Market
Effective
Rent/Unit
Asset
Value/Unit
Market
Cap
Rate
2025 Q3 7,776 214 0 126 1.6% $2,629 $426,483 4.37%
2025 Q2 7,776 0 0 115 2.2% $2,592 $429,994 4.36%
2024 7,776 0 816 904 3.0% $2,528 $428,928 4.32%
2023 6,960 816 0 115 4.6% $2,404 $485,782 4.18%
2022 6,960 816 0 150 6.2% $2,401 $548,986 3.64%
2021 6,960 0 0 139 8.4% $2,372 $612,465 3.23%
2020 6,960 0 0 -285 10.4% $2,219 $537,002 3.49%
2019 6,960 0 0 55 6.3% $2,418 $550,749 3.51%
2018 6,960 0 0 -11 7.1% $2,393 $523,738 3.57%
2017 6,960 0 0 -47 6.9% $2,317 $483,516 3.67%
2016 6,960 0 0 -55 6.2% $2,278 $460,635 3.71%
2015 6,960 0 0 -35 5.5% $2,295 $437,080 3.73%
Supply & Demand
The Submarket has 7.8k units of multifamily space, and developers have added, net of demolitions, 816 units over the past ten years, increasing inventory by 11.7% during that time.

Although demand has declined, in the absence of inventory growth, vacancy rates have compressed 163 bps over the past year from 3.3% to 1.6%, remaining below the 10-year average of 6.3%, and below the Market average by 275 bps. With 47 units absorbed in 2025 Q3, vacancy rates have compressed 61 bps over the past quarter. In the third quarter, multifamily tenants in the Submarket absorbed 47 units, an increase from the 7 units absorbed in 2025 Q2, and an improvement from the 36 units absorbed in the same quarter last year.

Vacancy Rates
- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
2025
Q2
2025
Q3
National 6.3% 6.6% 6.8% 6.6% 6.6% 6.8% 5.1% 6.6% 7.8% 8.3% 8.2% 8.2% Market 5.1% 5.1% 5.4% 5.1% 5.8% 10.6% 7.7% 6.8% 6.3% 5.5% 4.8% 4.4% Submarket 5.5% 6.2% 6.9% 7.1% 6.3% 10.4% 8.4% 6.2% 4.6% 3.0% 2.2% 1.6% Class A 12.6% 10.2% 7.9% 6.2% 3.5% 7.8% 4.5% 4.1% 5.3% 6.0% 4.3% 2.2% Class B 6.8% 8.1% 9.2% 9.2% 7.7% 13.1% 11.0% 8.1% 5.2% 2.4% 1.7% 1.0% Class C 3.6% 4.1% 4.4% 4.8% 4.9% 7.7% 5.9% 4.4% 3.9% 3.6% 3.1% 2.6% ATTACHMENT 6

Submarket Analyses
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 22
Source: CoStar
Rents
At $2,629/unit, rents in the Daly City/Brisbane Submarket are roughly 20% lower than the Market average of $3,302/unit. Rents vary throughout the Submarket. Class A apartment units are a premium with an average effective rent rate of $3,237/unit, followed by $2,718/unit for Class B and $2,405/unit for Class C units. Rents in the Submarket have increased 1.45% per annum over the past decade, falling short of the Market average, where rents increased

1.49% per annum during that time.

Market Rents
- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
2025
Q2
2025
Q3
National $1,309 $1,341 $1,374 $1,419 $1,468 $1,482 $1,630 $1,695 $1,711 $1,729 $1,758 $1,746 Market $2,873 $2,871 $2,921 $3,026 $3,071 $2,791 $2,998 $3,046 $3,022 $3,127 $3,272 $3,302 Submarket $2,295 $2,278 $2,317 $2,393 $2,418 $2,219 $2,372 $2,401 $2,404 $2,528 $2,592 $2,629 Class A $3,192 $3,211 $3,230 $3,228 $3,214 $3,128 $3,163 $3,191 $3,200 $3,204 $3,212 $3,237 Class B $2,377 $2,315 $2,338 $2,417 $2,432 $2,179 $2,395 $2,433 $2,415 $2,588 $2,673 $2,718 Class C $2,062 $2,132 $2,203 $2,279 $2,327 $2,229 $2,263 $2,275 $2,318 $2,355 $2,380 $2,405 Prior to the pandemic, the Daly City/Brisbane Multifamily Submarket experienced softening rent growth. In 2019 Q4, annual rent growth in the Submarket softened below the previous quarter, and was below the historical average, with annual growth of 1.05%. In 2020 Q2, quarterly rent growth fell to -1.0%. By the end of 2020, rents had fallen

8.21% from the 2019 Q4 rent level of $2,418/unit. From 2019 Q4 to 2021 Q4, rents decreased 1.90%. Quarterly rent growth in 2025 Q3 increased 1.44%, pushing annual growth to 4.19%.

ATTACHMENT 6

Submarket Analyses
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 23
Source: CoStar
Construction & Future Supply
Data from CoStar indicates that developers have been inactive for much of the past ten years. In fact, they have added just 816 units to the Submarket during that time period. Developers remain active in the Submarket despite elevated construction and debt costs. In fact, developers are currently active with 214 units, or the equivalent of 2.8% of existing inventory, underway. Demand in the Daly City/Brisbane Submarket has outpaced new deliveries over the past year but could slow along with softening economic growth.

ATTACHMENT 6

Submarket Analyses
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 24
Source: CoStar
Capital Markets
Investors have not been very active in the Submarket over the past three years, and few transactions have occurred.

During that time, investors have closed on average 3 transactions per year with an annual average sales volume of $357.7 million. Over the past year, there were 5 closed transactions across 460 units, for a total sales volume of $118.9 million. As of 2025 Q3, CoStar data indicates there were 2 transactions for a total sales volume of $16.1 million, compared to $5.9 million in the previous quarter.

ATTACHMENT 6

Submarket Analyses
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 25
Source: CoStar
Market pricing, based on the estimated price movement of all properties in the Submarket, is currently $426,483/unit. Values have compressed 1.5% over the past year and continued to fall in the past quarter, decreasing

0.8% in 2025 Q3. Capitalization rates increased 9 bps over the past year to 4.4% and increased 1 bps in 2025 Q3.

ATTACHMENT 6

Submarket Analyses
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 26
Source: CoStar
Outlook
Multifamily market conditions in the Daly City/Brisbane Submarket indicate positive annual absorption, although it has slowed. Vacancy rates have been aided by an absence of inventory growth as well. With vacancy rates compressing, quarterly rent growth increased 1.44%, increasing annual growth 4.19%. Looking ahead to the near term, it is likely that tenant demand remains active, although an active pipeline will likely add upward pressure on vacancy rates, slowing rent growth.

Max Allowable Rents
We note HEART intends to apply for a new regulatory agreement with new max rents. The existing rents are well below the proposed max rents and HEART is anticipating they will be able to bring one unit to the new max rents per year. We note that at the request of the client, we have assumed that all units are rents at the newly proposed max allowable rents. The proposed max allowable rents are illustrated below:

ATTACHMENT 6

Submarket Analyses
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 27
ATTACHMENT 6

Highest & Best Use
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 28
Highest & Best Use
In determining highest and best use, we have considered the current trends of supply and demand on the market, current zoning regulations and other possible restrictions, and neighboring land uses.

It is to be recognized that in cases where a site has existing improvements on it, the highest and best use may be determined to be different from the existing use. The existing use will continue, however, unless and until land value in its highest and best use exceeds the total value of the property in its existing use.

In estimating highest and best use, alternative uses that meet the four criteria of legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and the maximally productive use, are considered and tested for the subject site as if vacant and as improved.

As Vacant
Legally Permissible The subject is in zone (NCRO-2) Neighborhood Commercial, which permits Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units associated with an existing or proposed single family dwelling duplex or multiple family dwelling, Financial institutions, Home occupations, Large family day care homes in a dwelling unit if part of a mixed use development, Medical facilities, Offices, Personal services, Restaurants, Retail sales and rental, and Small family day care homes in a dwelling unit if part of a mixed use development use as of right. There are no zoning changes anticipated and no easements or encroachments that preclude development. We note the property is deed restricted and any development is restricted to be 100% affordable.

Physically Possible The site contains 17,138 square feet with 90 feet of frontage along Visitacion, 210 feet of frontage along San Francisco and 84 feet of frontage along Inyo. The size falls within the range of improved sites in the area. All necessary utilities are available and the site appears functional for a variety of permitted uses.

Financially Feasible The subject property is located within a primarily residential neighborhood. Based on our analysis of the market, there is sufficient demand for multifamily properties. Market conditions are such that new multifamily construction is feasible, as the value would sufficiently exceed the cost plus developer's profit. New construction in the neighborhood is currently underway and newly developed multifamily buildings in the subject's submarket are selling, an indication of feasibility.

Maximally Productive/
Highest and Best Use
There does not appear to be any reasonably probable use of the site that would generate a higher residual land value than to develop for multifamily use. Based on the normal market density level permitted by zoning, this is considered the maximally productive use of the site.

Conclusion Based on the subject property's zoning, physical characteristics, location, and forecasted economic conditions, it is our opinion that the highest and best use of the site as vacant is to develop a Deed Restricted Affordable Housing building to the highest density permitted by zoning and supported within the market.

ATTACHMENT 6

Highest & Best Use
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 29
As Improved
Legally Permissible The subject improvements consist of 19,998 square feet of gross building area on a 17,138 square feet site which reflect an FAR of 1.17. Located in the (NCRO-2) Neighborhood Commercial zone, permitted uses include various residential uses. The current multifamily use of the improvements is a permitted use. The improvements also comply to the bulk requirements as specified and discussed in the zoning section of the report.

Physically Possible The subject is a 2-story, walk-up, multifamily building consisting of 14 residential units with 19,998 square feet of gross building area. The property is currently operating as an affordable senior housing project property and consists of twelve, 1 BR / 1 BA units and two, 2 BR / 1 BA units. All of the units are deed restricted. Upon transfer of the property, HEART will update the rent restriction levels to include three 30% AMI units, one 50% AMI unit, six 60% AMI units, and four 120% AMI units. The layout, site coverage and positioning of the improvements are considered functional for the current use. While it would be physically possible for a wide variety of uses, based on legal restrictions in place and the design of the improvements, continued use of the property as multifamily use is considered the most functional. Additionally, there is no excess or surplus land noted nor excess FAR to consider.

Financially Feasible The subject property is located within a primarily residential neighborhood exhibiting low vacancy rates and increasing rental rates. As improved, the subject reflects 100% occupancy and will generate a positive net cash flow. Therefore, use as a multifamily property is financially feasible. Also, demolition is not an option.

Maximally Productive/
Highest and Best Use
There does not appear to be any alternative use that could reasonably be expected to provide a higher present value than the current use, and the existing use exceeds the value of the site as vacant. Continued multifamily use is concluded to be maximally productive.

Conclusion Based on the subject property's zoning, physical characteristics, location, and forecasted economic conditions, continued Deed Restricted Affordable Housing use is concluded to be the highest and best use as improved.

Most Probable Buyer Taking into account the size and characteristics of the property and its multifamily occupancy, the likely buyer is a local investor/developer.

ATTACHMENT 6

Appraisal Valuation Process
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 30
Appraisal Valuation Process
The Cost Approach is based on market participants relating value of improvements to associated costs to build. In the Cost Approach, the cost to build a new or substitute property is used as a comparison to the subject. The replacement cost or reproduction cost estimate is then adjusted for all applicable depreciation. This approach reflects a good indicator of value when the improvements are new, nearly new, close to fully depreciated, or when the property has unique or specialized improvements.

The Income Capitalization Approach reflects the analysis of a property’s capacity to generate future income and capitalizes the income into an indication of present value. This approach reflects the relationship between a property’s potential income and its market value and is a strong indicator of value when there is reliable market data to derive market rents, vacancy rates, stabilized expenses, and capitalization/discount rates. The two most common valuation techniques are direct capitalization and the discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, with one or both methods applied as appropriate. This approach is widely used in appraising income producing properties.

The Sales Comparison Approach assumes that an informed purchaser would pay no more for a property than the cost of acquiring another existing property with similar utility. This approach is reliable in an active market with sufficient sales data where few differences exist between the comparable sales and the subject, and the sales data collected is credible and accurate. Similar property types in competitive locations tend to sell within a consistent range, and this factor makes valuation on a per square foot and per unit basis a strong predictor of value. The Sales Comparison Approach is often relied upon for owner-user properties and/or in markets where leasing activity is sparse. For leased properties, this approach is more often considered as secondary support for the Income Approach.

Each approach applied is then reconciled to a final value conclusion after weighing the quantity and quality of data analyzed and the applicability of each approach to the subject property type.

Approaches to Value Applied
Approach Applicability to Subject Use in Assignment
Cost Approach Not Applicable No
Income Capitalization Approach Applicable Yes
Sales Comparison Approach Applicable Yes
The difficulty in credibly isolating the influence of physical and economic depreciation on value affects the reliability of the Cost Approach. Investors typically give nominal weight to this analysis if the asset is operating on a stabilized basis and its cost bears little relationship to the value, therefore it was not found to be appropriate in our value development.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 31
Income Capitalization Approach
In the Income Capitalization Approach, a property's capacity to generate future benefits is analyzed; the forecasted income is capitalized into an indication of present value. Definitions of commonly used measures of anticipated benefits are defined in the Glossary of Terms within the Addenda.

The Income Capitalization Approach supports two methodologies: direct and yield capitalization. Investors in the local market typically utilize a direct capitalization when making investment decisions for this asset class, therefore we conclude that the direct capitalization method is appropriate to apply to the subject.

Income Analysis
Current Residential Rent Roll
8 Visitacion Avenue currently contains 14 occupied unit 8 Visitacion Avenue
# Unit # Unit Type
Bedroo
ms Bathrooms SF Rent Type
Lease
Status
Lease Start
Date
Monthly
Rent Rent/SF
1 I1 60% AMI 2 1 833 Affordable Occupied 04/29/2016 $509.00 $7.33 2 I2 120% AMI 2 1 833 Affordable Occupied 01/19/2023 $1,535.00 $22.11 3 I3 30% AMI 1 1 694 Affordable Occupied 03/02/2020 $807.00 $13.95 4 I4 30% AMI 1 1 694 Affordable Occupied 10/01/2019 $1,058.00 $18.29 5 I5 60% AMI 1 1 718 Affordable Occupied 06/27/2023 $621.00 $10.38 6 I6 120% AMI 1 1 699 Affordable Occupied 01/01/2018 $1,058.00 $18.16 7 V1 60% AMI 1 1 761 Affordable Occupied 03/15/2017 $1,235.00 $19.47 8 V10 30% AMI 1 1 695 Affordable Occupied 02/01/2003 $556.00 $9.60 9 V2 50% AMI 1 1 695 Affordable Occupied 03/01/2019 $1,058.00 $18.27 10 V4 60% AMI 1 1 695 Affordable Occupied 08/28/2020 $1,058.00 $18.27 11 V5 120% AMI 1 1 695 Affordable Occupied 10/22/2020 $1,235.00 $21.32 12 V6 60% AMI 1 1 695 Affordable Occupied 08/01/2025 $1,016.00 $17.54 13 V8 120% AMI 1 1 695 Affordable Occupied 02/16/2000 $807.00 $13.93 14 V9 60% AMI 1 1 763 Affordable Occupied 07/15/2021 $1,150.00 $18.09 Totals/Avg
s
16 14 10,165 $13,703.00 $16.18
Annual $164,436.00
We note this represents the existing rental rates at the property, which are well below that of the newly proposed max allowable rents. At the request of the client, we have provided a hypothetical value as if all the units are leased at the max allowable rents.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 32
Comparable Rentals
In order to gauge the reasonableness of the contract rents, we have examined the following rental activity in the submarket:
1 BR 120% AMI Rentals
1 BR 120% AMI Rentals Summary
Comp Address Bedrooms Monthly Rent
1 2 West Cavour Street, Daly City, CA 1 $2,300
2 607 Sylvan Street, Daly City, CA 1 $2,350
3 667 Villa Street, Daly City, CA 1 $2,400
4 340 Railroad Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 1 $1,900 5 681 Linden Street, Daly City, CA 1 $2,300
Min $1,900
Avg $2,250
Max $2,400
ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 33
Rent Reconciliation
The subject has no market rate one-bedroom units, as they are all currently affordable. Currently, the in-place rental range is from $807 to $1,235 per month . Comparable one-bedroom units range from $1,900 to $2,400 per monthwith an average of $2,250 per month. Based on the range of the comparables, we forecast a market rent of $2,000 per month. We note the max allowable rents for 120% AMI units is $4,088, which is significantly higher than the market rent for the area. Therefore, we have utilized market rent within our analysis. We conclude towards the bottom end of the range given tenants would need to be incentivized to sign a lease at the property given it is affordable.

The remaining 1 BR units max rents are all below market and we have utilized the provided max allowable rents for these units.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 34
2 BR 120% AMI Rentals
2 BR 120% AMI Rentals Summary
Comp Address Bedrooms Monthly Rent
1 766 Hillside Boulevard, Daly City, CA 2 $2,895
2 361 Half Moon Lane, Daly City, CA 2 $2,850
3 414 Commercial Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 2 $2,880 4 83 Bellevue Avenue, Daly City, CA 2 $3,200
5 200 Monterey Street, Brisbane, CA 2 $2,900
Min $2,850
Avg $2,945
Max $3,200
ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 35
Rent Reconciliation
The subject has no market rate two-bedroom units, as they are all currently affordable. Currently, the in-place rental range is from $1,535 to $1,535 per month. Comparable two-bedroom units range from $2,850 to $3,200 per month with an average of $2,945 per month. Based on the range of the comparables, we forecast a market rent of $2,900 per month. We note the max allowable rents for 120% AMI units is $4,898, which is significantly higher than the market rent for the area. Therefore, we have utilized market rent within our analysis. We conclude towards the bottom end of the range given tenants would need to be incentivized to sign a lease at the property given it is affordable.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 36
The remaining 2 BR units max rents are all below market and we have utilized the provided max allowable rents for these units.

Market Rent Comparison
Bedroom
Market
Survey Market Rent Conclusion
1 BR 120% AMI Minimum $1,900.00
1 BR 120% AMI Average $2,250.00 $2,000.00
1 BR 120% AMI Maximum $2,400.00
1 BR 30% AMI Minimum $1,900.00
1 BR 30% AMI Average $2,250.00 $1,010.00
1 BR 30% AMI Maximum $2,400.00
1 BR 50% AMI Minimum $1,900.00
1 BR 50% AMI Average $2,250.00 $1,756.00
1 BR 50% AMI Maximum $2,400.00
1 BR 60% AMI Minimum $1,900.00
1 BR 60% AMI Average $2,250.00 $2,130.00
1 BR 60% AMI Maximum $2,400.00
2 BR 120% AMI Minimum $2,850.00
2 BR 120% AMI Average $2,945.00 $2,900.00
2 BR 120% AMI Maximum $3,200.00
2 BR 60% AMI Minimum $2,850.00
2 BR 60% AMI Average $2,945.00 $2,379.00
2 BR 60% AMI Maximum $3,200.00
Base Residential Income
8 Visitacion Avenue contains 14 residential units; the residential rent roll is summarized by unit type and rent regulation status.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 37
Rent Roll Summary by Unit Type
Unit Type No. of Units Rental Range Per Month Total Annual Rent Avg. Rent Per Month 1 BR 120% AMI 3 $2,000 - $2,000 $72,000 $2,000
1 BR 30% AMI 3 $1,010 - $1,010 $36,360 $1,010
1 BR 50% AMI 1 $1,756 - $1,756 $21,072 $1,756
1 BR 60% AMI 5 $2,130 - $2,130 $127,800 $2,130
2 BR 120% AMI 1 $2,900 - $2,900 $34,800 $2,900
2 BR 60% AMI 1 $2,379 - $2,379 $28,548 $2,379
Totals/Average 14 $320,580 $1,908
Rent Roll Summary by Rent Regulation Status
Income Type No. of Units Rental Range Per Month Total Annual Rent Avg. Rent Per Month Affordable 14 $1,010 - $2,900 $320,580 $1,908
Totals/Average 14 $320,580 $1,908
The average in place monthly rent is $1,908.

The contract rents are based on the following expense structure:

Landlord's Obligations Common area electricity, refuse removal, water/sewer and common area maintenance.

Tenant Obligations In-unit electricity, cooking gas and heat.

Potential Gross Residential Income
Potential gross residential income is summarized by income type:

Potential Gross Residential Income
Income Type PGI
Affordable $320,580
Total $320,580
Miscellaneous Income
Laundry Income
The subject property derives additional income from washers and dryers in the laundry room. The laundry room is currently leased to and operated by Wash with an annual income of $33. This income equates to $2 per unit per annum. Based on comparable assets in the marketplace, this income is reasonable and will be applied in the stabilized pro forma. We note this estimate is very low; however, the income has been consistent over the past 3 years and the pending buyer is projecting the same income. We have placed primary reliance on the buyer projections.

Parking Income
The subject property has 14 parking spaces available. Parking is a free amenity.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 38
Other Income
We note that the community center is providing $3,602 of additional annual income for the subject. The existing lease, which expires in 2028 along with the ground lease includes a utility reimbursement of 20% of the costs of gas & electric and 10% of the costs of water and sewer. HEART has stated the lease terms will remain the same for the new lease for the community center space and has projected this income at $3,602. This forecast has been applied to our analysis.

Residential Vacancy and Collection Loss
The subject is 100% occupied and contains 14 affordable residential units. CoStar reports the submarket rate near

1.64% and metro area rate near 4.39%. We note the submarket vacancy rate has dropped 61 basis points QoQ and 163 basis points YoY. Overall, we have concluded to a vacancy below the middle of the range given the affordable housing aspect of the subject. Based on 8 Visitacion Avenue's current and historical operating results, macro market conditions, and investor expectations, a 2.00% residential vacancy and collection loss has been applied.

Effective Gross Income Summary
Effective Gross Income
Potential Residential Income $320,580
Potential Laundry Income $33
Commercial Unit Utilites $3,602
Potential Gross Income $324,215
Less Residential V/C Loss @ 2.00% -$6,412
Less Laundry V/C Loss @ 2.00% -$1
Less Commercial Unit Utilites V/C Loss @ 2.00% -$72
Effective Gross Income $317,731
Operating Expense Analysis
We were provided with the following summarized operating expense information for the subject property. In developing our forecast of operating expenses, we considered the provided expense information as well as expense reports of comparable properties. The data, analyzed in terms of residential units and gross building area, is presented below.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 39
Owner's Operating Expense History & Projection
Historical & Projected Expenses
2023 Actual 2024 Actual
Gross Per SF Per Unit Gross Per SF Per Unit
Effective Gross Revenue $173,947 $8.70 $12,425 $189,312 $9.47 $13,522 Operating Expenses
Real Estate Taxes $32 $0.00 $2 $37 $0.00 $3
Insurance $15,802 $0.79 $1,129 $12,689 $0.63 $906
Utilities $22,757 $1.14 $1,626 $23,549 $1.18 $1,682
Repairs & Maintenance $40,591 $2.03 $2,899 $54,187 $2.71 $3,871 Payroll & Benefits - - - - - -
General & Administrative $59,691 $2.98 $4,264 $69,558 $3.48 $4,968 Management Fees $13,692 $0.68 $978 $14,103 $0.71 $1,007 Replacement Reserves - - - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenses $152,565 $7.63 $10,898 $174,123 $8.71 $12,437 Total Operating Expenses (Excl. RE Taxes) $152,533 $7.63 $10,895 $174,086 $8.71 $12,435 2025 Actual Owner's Pro Forma
Gross Per SF Per Unit Gross Per SF Per Unit
Effective Gross Revenue $182,685 $9.14 $13,049 $198,524 $9.93 $14,180 Operating Expenses
Real Estate Taxes - - - - - -
Insurance $14,040 $0.70 $1,003 $13,285 $0.66 $949
Utilities $24,012 $1.20 $1,715 $24,852 $1.24 $1,775
Repairs & Maintenance $35,626 $1.78 $2,545 $28,633 $1.43 $2,045 Payroll & Benefits - - - - - -
General & Administrative $116,603 $5.83 $8,329 $82,626 $4.13 $5,902 Management Fees $14,592 $0.73 $1,042 $14,868 $0.74 $1,062 Replacement Reserves - - - - - -
Miscellaneous - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenses $204,873 $10.24 $14,634 $164,264 $8.21 $11,733 Total Operating Expenses (Excl. RE Taxes) $204,873 $10.24 $14,634 $164,264 $8.21 $11,733 ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 40
Comparable Operating Expenses
Basis & Totals
Comp 1 Comp 2 Comp 3 Comp 4 Average
City San Francisco San Francisco South San
Francisco
South San
Francisco
-
State CA CA CA CA -
Expense Period Annualized
Historical
Actual Actual Actual -
Expense Year 2024 2024 2024 2024 -
SF 11,414 8,025 6,016 13,644 9,775
Units 13 8 6 11 10
Insurance $9,388 $12,425 $5,165 $12,236 $9,804
Utilities $22,234 $15,211 $9,950 $30,859 $19,563
Repairs & Maintenance $22,986 $15,740 $5,100 $24,189 $17,004 General & Administrative $1,300 $10,007 $3,400 $5,099 $4,951 Management Fees $8,441 $18,199 $3,000 $20,378 $12,504
Replacement Reserves - - - - -
Total Operating Expenses $64,350 $71,582 $26,615 $92,761 $63,827 Per Unit
Comp 1 Comp 2 Comp 3 Comp 4 Average
Insurance $722 $1,553 $861 $1,112 $1,062
Utilities $1,710 $1,901 $1,658 $2,805 $2,019
Repairs & Maintenance $1,768 $1,968 $850 $2,199 $1,696
General & Administrative $100 $1,251 $567 $464 $595
Management Fees $649 $2,275 $500 $1,853 $1,319
Replacement Reserves - - - - -
Total Operating Expenses $4,950 $8,948 $4,436 $8,433 $6,692 ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 41
Estimated Operating Expenses
Our stabilized annual expense forecast is presented:

Real Estate Taxes
As presented earlier, we forecasted the tax payment at $21 annually or $0.00 per square foot.

Insurance
Per Unit Summary Value Low Average High
2023 Actual $1,129
2024 Actual $906
2025 Actual $1,003
Owner's Projection $949
Comparable $722 $1,062 $1,553
Appraiser’s Forecast $950
Insurance costs vary by the type of coverage. Costs are generally lower (on a per unit basis) for larger buildings and for multi-building policies. Based on the information above, we have projected this expense at $950 per unit, or $13,300 annually.

Utilities
Per Unit Summary Value Low Average High
2023 Actual $1,626
2024 Actual $1,682
2025 Actual $1,715
Owner's Projection $1,775
Comparable $1,658 $2,019 $2,805
Appraiser’s Forecast $1,775
Based on the information above, we have projected this expense at $1,775 per unit, or $24,850 annually.

Repairs & Maintenance
Per Unit Summary Value Low Average High
2023 Actual $2,899
2024 Actual $3,871
2025 Actual $2,545
Owner's Projection $2,045
Comparable $850 $1,696 $2,199
Appraiser’s Forecast $1,500
This expense varies depending on building age, management philosophy, services provided, and accounting methodology. Some management companies expense items that are normally included as capital costs. In addition, repair and maintenance costs may change from year to year; in some cases, repairs that require attention may be postponed due to cash flow considerations. Based on the information above, we have projected this expense at $1,500 per unit, or $21,000 annually. We note the projections include a higher than typical landscaping expense and we have concluded more in line with the expense comparabls.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 42
General & Administrative
Per Unit Summary Value Low Average High
2023 Actual $4,264
2024 Actual $4,968
2025 Actual $8,329
Owner's Projection $659
Comparable $100 $595 $1,251
Appraiser’s Forecast $650
This expense allows for any expenditure not included in the above categories including general administrative costs, accounting/legal, permits and dues, miscellaneous charges, office expense, etc. Based on the information above, we have projected this expense at $650 per unit, or $9,100 annually.

Management Fees
Per Unit Summary Value Low Average High
2023 Actual $978
2024 Actual $1,007
2025 Actual $1,042
Owner's Projection $1,062
Comparable $500 $1,319 $2,275
Appraiser’s Forecast $1,135
Typically, management fees for similar properties range from 2% to 6% of effective gross income. We have projected this expense at 5% of effective gross income, which equates to $1,135 per unit, or $15,887 annually.

Replacement Reserves
Per Unit Summary Value Low Average High
Comparable - - -
Appraiser’s Forecast $250
This expense provides for the periodic replacement of building components that wear out more rapidly than the building itself and that must be replaced periodically during the building's economic life. We note the owner did not indicate this expense. We have projected this expense at $250 per unit, or $3,500 annually.

Ground Lease
Annual Summary Value Low Average High
Comparable - - -
Appraiser’s Forecast $1
The property is encumbered by a ground lease with the City of Brisbane. The existing ground lease runs through 2028; however, HEART will have a new ground lease in place at the expiration for $1 per year. At the request of the client we have utilized the new ground lease within this analysis. It is worth noting the existing ground lease payment is based upon surplus cash. According to our knowledge, there has never been a payment on the ground lease as there has never been surplus cash at the property. We have projected this expense at $1 annually.

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 43
Total Operating Expenses
Per Unit
Per Unit Summary Value Low Average High
2023 Actual $10,895
2024 Actual $12,435
2025 Actual $14,634
Owner's Projection $6,490
Comparable $4,436 $6,692 $8,948
Appraiser’s Forecast $6,260
Operating expenses, exclusive of real estate taxes, were forecasted at $6,260 per unit. Excluding real estate taxes, the comparables ranged from $4,436 to $8,948 per unit. Our forecast is above the comparables given the higher General & Administrative expense due to the fact the property is an affordable project. Generally speaking, affordable projects have significant G&A expenses due to the large amount of work necessary to audit tenants to ensure they are within the max allowable rents and complying to the regulatory agreement in place.

Stabilized Income & Expenses
Pro Forma
Pro Forma $ PSF Per Unit
Income
Potential Residential Income $320,580 $16.03 $22,899
Laundry Income $33 $0.00 $2
Commercial Unit Utilites $3,602 $0.18 $257
Potential Gross Income $324,215 $16.21 $23,158
Less Residential V/C Loss @ 2.00% -$6,412 -$0.32 -$458
Less Laundry V/C Loss @ 2.00% -$1 -$0.00 -$0
Less Commercial Unit Utilites V/C Loss @

2.00%
-$72 $0.00 -$5
Effective Gross Income $317,731 $15.89 $22,695
Operating Expenses
Real Estate Taxes $21 $0.00 $1
Insurance $13,300 $0.67 $950
Utilities $24,850 $1.24 $1,775
Repairs & Maintenance $21,000 $1.05 $1,500
General & Administrative $9,100 $0.46 $650
Management Fees $15,887 $0.79 $1,135
Replacement Reserves $3,500 $0.18 $250
Ground Lease $1 $0.00 $0
Total Operating Expenses $87,659 $4.38 $6,261
Total Expenses Excluding RE Taxes $87,638 $4.38 $6,260
Net Operating Income $230,072 $11.50 $16,434
Operating Expense Ratio 28%
ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 44
Income Capitalization
In developing an opinion of the overall capitalization rate required by an investor, we will apply several methods of analyses: (1) Comparable Capitalization Rates; (2) National Survey Responses; and (3) Personal Surveys.

Comparable Capitalization Rates
Comparable Cap Rates Table
# Address
Property
Type No. of Units
Year
Built Sale Date
Capitalization
Rate
1 578-586 Guerrero Street, San Francisco, CA Multifamily 6 1913 10/21/25 7.03% 2 132 Southwood Drive, San Francisco, CA Multifamily 7 1958 9/5/25 7.36% 3 1116 Douglas Ave., Burlingame, CA Multifamily 10 1936 7/28/25 3.82% 4 1102 Mason St., San Francisco, CA Multifamily 5 1909 6/12/25 5.30% 5 116 San Luis Avenue, San Bruno, CA Multifamily 7 1964 2/14/25 6.35% 6 198 West Moltke Street, Daly City, CA Multifamily 6 1931 9/12/24 4.70% Avg 5.76%
We analyzed sales of comparable assets within the subject’s periphery and they exhibit overall capitalization rates from 3.82% to 7.36% with an average of 5.76%. We note we could not locate any comparable affordable multifamily properties and have instead utilized traditional market rate properties. Given we have assumed the subject is leased at the maximum allowable rents and there is limited upside associated with the rental rates, we have concluded towards the upper end of the range indicated by the comparables.

National Survey Responses
The PwC Real Estate and Real Estate Research Corporation's investment surveys summarize the expectations of institutional investors. As indicated, the going-in capitalization rates range from 4% to 6.5%, with an average between 5.1% and 5.23%.

Summary
Survey Low Avg High
Personal Survey 6.00% - 6.50%
PWC 4Q 2025 4.00% 5.23% 6.50%
RERC - Situs 3Q 2025 4.30% 5.10% 5.50%
Comparable Cap Rates 3.82% 4.99% 6.35%

We note the survey responses are indicative of typical market properties and we would expect the subject to achieve an OAR at the upper end of the range.

Capitalization Rate Conclusion
An overall rate of 7.00% is applied in the analysis and in line with investor expectations. The value is calculated below:

ATTACHMENT 6

Income Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 45
Value Opinion Via the Income Capitalization Approach
Date of Value Value Final Value
(RD)
NOI $230,072 -
Cap Rate 7.00% -
As Is Market Value Via the Income Capitalization Approach January 20, 2026 $3,286,743 $3,290,000 In consideration of the above analysis, the As Is Market Value of $3,290,000 reflects a unit value of $235,000 per unit. The final value is rounded to the nearest $10,000.

ATTACHMENT 6

Sales Comparison Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 46
Sales Comparison Approach
In the Sales Comparison Approach, an opinion of market value is provided by comparing the subject property to transactions of competitive assets. A major premise is the principle of substitution which holds market value is directly related to the prices of comparable properties as a knowledgeable investor will pay no more for a substitute property.

In order to analyze comparable sales, it is necessary to convert the sale prices to an appropriate unit of comparison, a process which facilitates price comparisons between properties of different sizes, and it also enables adjustment for qualitative differences. Since investors typically purchase similar buildings in the subject's area in terms of value per residential unit, we have applied this unit of comparison.

Comparable Sales Summary10
Address Sale Date
Residential
Unit Sale Price
Sale Price
Per
Residential
Unit
NOI Per
Residential
Unit
Cap
Rate
1 578-586 Guerrero Street, San Francisco, CA 10/21/2025 6 $1,390,000 $231,667 $16,286 7.03% 2 132 Southwood Drive, San Francisco, CA 09/05/2025 7 $2,000,000 $285,714 $21,029 7.36% 3 1116 Douglas Ave., Burlingame, CA 07/28/2025 10 $2,900,000 $290,000 $11,078 3.82% 4 1102 Mason St., San Francisco, CA 06/12/2025 5 $1,144,000 $228,800 $12,126 5.30% 5 116 San Luis Avenue, San Bruno, CA 02/14/2025 7 $1,450,000 $207,143 $13,154 6.35% 6 198 West Moltke Street, Daly City, CA 09/12/2024 6 $2,000,000 $333,333 $15,667 4.70% 10 The outlines of each of the comparable sales can be found in the Addenda.

ATTACHMENT 6

Sales Comparison Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 47
We note that despite an extensive search, we were unable to find any comparable affordable projects similar to the subject. We have utilized typical market rate properties and made an adjustment to account for the fact the property is affordable. Further, we were unable to find any leasehold sales similar to the subject. Given the fact the proposed ground lease is only $1 per year, there is no meaningful impact on the value of the subject as a result of the ground lease.

ATTACHMENT 6

Sales Comparison Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 48
Comparable Sales Adjustment Grid
Comparable # Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6
Address 8 Visitacion
Avenue, Brisbane,
CA
578-586 Guerrero
Street
132 Southwood
Drive
1116 Douglas
Ave.
1102 Mason St. 116 San Luis
Avenue
198 West Moltke
Street
Sale Date 10/21/2025 9/5/2025 7/28/2025 6/12/2025 2/14/2025 9/12/2024 Sale Price $1,390,000 $2,000,000 $2,900,000 $1,144,000 $1,450,000 $2,000,000 Cap Rate 7.03% 7.36% 3.82% 5.3% 6.35% 4.7%
Property Rights Leasehold Interest Leased Fee Interest Leased Fee Interest
Leased Fee
Interest
Leased Fee
Interest
Leased Fee
Interest
Leased Fee
Interest
City Brisbane San Francisco San Francisco Burlingame San Francisco San Bruno Daly City # of Residential Units 14 6 7 10 5 7 6
Average Unit Size 726 606 777 525 1,069 914 750
GBA 19,998 3,635 5,440 5,253 5,344 6,660 5,979
Condition Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Year Built 2000 1913 1958 1936 1909 1964 1931
Parking Ratio 1.00 per unit 1.00 per unit
Price Per Residential Unit: $231,667 $285,714 $290,000 $228,800 $207,143 $333,333 Property Rights 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Financing Terms None 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Conditions of Sale None 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Market Conditions (Time): January 20, 2026 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Cumulative Price Per
Residential Unit:
$231,667 $285,714 $290,000 $228,800 $207,143 $333,333
Location Central Brisbane 0% 0% -5% 0% 15% 0%
Utility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Size 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Rent Stabilization Level 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Condition -5% 0% -5% 5% 0% -5%
Average Unit Size 7% 0% 5% -5% -5% 0%
Affordable -15% -15% -15% -15% -15% -15%
Net Adjustments -13% -15% -20% -15% -5% -20%
Adjusted Price Per
Residential Unit
$201,550 $242,857 $232,000 $194,480 $196,786 $266,667
Unadjusted Adjusted
Low $207,143 Low $194,480
Average $262,776 Average $222,390
High $333,333 High $266,667
Median $258,690 Median $216,775
ATTACHMENT 6

Sales Comparison Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 49
Property Rights Appraised The purpose of this adjustment is to account for differences in the property rights transferred with the sale. We are valuing the leasehold interest in the subject property, as reflected by all of the comparables. Thus, no adjustments were required.

Financing Terms The purpose of adjusting for financing terms is to determine cash equivalent sale prices for the comparables in accordance with the definition of market value for this report.

To the best of our knowledge, all of the comparables used in this analysis were accomplished with cash or market-oriented financing. Therefore, no adjustments were required.

Conditions of Sale Condition of sale refers to the motivations of the buyer and seller involved in a particular transaction. However, all comparables used in this analysis are considered to be "arm's-length" market transactions between both knowledgeable buyers and sellers on the open market. Therefore, no adjustments were required.

Market Conditions (Time) The purpose of this adjustment is to account for changes in market conditions. All comparables used in this analysis sold under similar market condition; therefore, no adjustments were required.

Location The subject property is located in Brisbane. Comparable 5 is located in an area with typically lower rental rates, and thus required a 15% upward adjustment. Comparable 3 is located in an area with typically higher rental rates, and thus required a 5% downward adjustment.

Utility All comparables used in this analysis have similar utility; therefore, no adjustments were required.

Size This adjustment accounts for the difference in size between each of the comparables and the subject property. We note that there is an inverse relationship between size and value per residential unit such that smaller properties will sell for higher prices per residential unit and vice versa. The subject and all of the comparables are within a reasonable size range, thus no adjustments were necessary.

Rent Stabilization Level The subject is not rent stabilized. No adjustments were necessary as the comparables have similar rent stabilization levels.

Condition The subject property was constructed in 2000 and is in average condition.

Comparables 1, 3 and 6 are in a superior condition, and thus required downward adjustments. Comparable 4 is in an inferior condition, and thus required an upward adjustment.

Average Unit Size The comparable properties are analyzed on price per unit basis; however, the average unit size can vary among the comparable properties. Typically there is a direct correlation between the average size of a unit and the price per unit. Comparables 4 and 5 have a larger average unit size as compared to the subject, and thus required downward adjustments. Comparables 1 and 3 have a smaller average unit size as compared to the subject, and thus required upward adjustments.

Affordable Comparables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 required downward adjustments as they are not affordable projects.

After adjustments, the comparable sales exhibited a range between $194,480 per residential unit and $266,667 per residential unit with an average of $222,390 per residential unit and a median of $216,775 per residential unit. Thus, considering the elements of comparison noted above, our opinion of market value is $225,000 per residential unit.

ATTACHMENT 6

Sales Comparison Approach
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 50
Value Opinion via the Sales Comparison Approach
Date of Value Value Final Value (RD)
Concluded Value Per Residential Unit $225,000 -
Residential Units 14 -
As Is Market Value Via the Sales Comparison Approach January 20, 2026 $3,150,000 $3,150,000 The final value is rounded to the nearest $10,000.

ATTACHMENT 6

Reconciliation & Final Value
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 51
Reconciliation & Final Value
The estimated values arrived at by the approaches to value used in this report are as follows:

Estimated Values
Approach Value Date Conclusion
Cost Approach As Is Market Value N/A Not Applied
Income Capitalization Approach As Is Market Value January 20, 2026 $3,290,000 Sales Comparison Approach As Is Market Value January 20, 2026 $3,150,000 The Cost Approach is traditionally a good indicator of value when properties being appraised are new or close to new. The difficulty in credibly isolating the influence of physical depreciation and obsolescence affects the reliability of the Cost Approach. Investors typically give nominal weight to this analysis once a property is operating on a stabilized basis as its cost bears little relationship to the value; therefore, we exclude this approach from our analysis.

The Income Capitalization Approach is a strong indicator of value when market rents, vacancy rates, stabilized expenses, and/or capitalization/discount rates are based on reliable market data. In this case, given the depth of the market, there are numerous transactions from which to glean points of analysis, lending credibility to the results of the approach. Similar assets are generally acquired for their capacity to generate a return on and of capital, which is why this is the methodology primarily applied by investors. Balancing the previously noted factors, and available points of analysis, most weight is placed on the opinion developed by the Income Capitalization Approach.

The Sales Comparison Approach is reliable when few differences exist between the comparable sales and the subject, and the sales data collected is credible and accurate. Similar property types in competitive locations tend to sell within a consistent range, and this factor makes valuation on a per square foot and per unit basis a strong predictor of value. The Sales Comparison Approach is largely used as a secondary support for our opinion developed in the application of other approaches.

Final Value Conclusion
Value Premise Date of Value Interest Appraised Value Conclusion As Is Market Value January 20, 2026 Leasehold Interest $3,290,000 ATTACHMENT 6

Reconciliation & Final Value
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 52
The value conclusions are subject to the following Extraordinary Assumptions11. We note the use of this/these extraordinary assumption(s) may have affected the assignment results. If the assumption is found to be false as of the effective date of the appraisal, we reserve the right to modify our value conclusions:
• None.

The value conclusions are based on the following Hypothetical Conditions 12 . We note the use of this/these hypothetical conditions(s) may have affected the assignment results:
• We note the property is currently encumbered by a ground lease that expires in 2028. HEART intends to renew this ground lease at a rate of $1 per year upon expiration. We have valued the property as if it is already encumbered by the new ground lease.
• We note there is a community center lease that is coterminous with the ground lease that expires in 2028.

HEART intends to renew this sublease for $1 per year with expense reimbursements for their share of utilities. We have valued the property as if the new lease is in place. • HEART intends to apply for a new regulatory agreement with new maximum allowable rents. At the request of the client, we have valued the property as if the tenants are leasing the units at the proposed maximum allowable rents.
11 The definition of Extraordinary Assumptions can be found in the Glossary of Terms, which is located in the Addenda. 12 The definition of Hypothetical Conditions can be found in the Glossary of Terms, which is located in the Addenda.

ATTACHMENT 6

Certification
Bowery Valuation 2600045589 53
Certification
We certify to the best of our knowledge:
• The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. • The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. • We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
• We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding the agreement to perform this assignment.
• We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.
• Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.
• Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
• Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standard of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and applicable state appraisal regulations.
• Sam Cimino has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report on 01/20/2026.

Bryson Young, MAI has not made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. • No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. • The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
• As of the date of this report, Bryson Young, MAI has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.
• We have experience in appraising properties similar to the subject and are in compliance with the Competency Rule of USPAP.

Bryson Young, MAI
Senior Managing Director
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
CA License No. AG044713
[email protected]
(650) 334-5404
Sam Cimino
Vice President
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
CA License No. AG3007042
[email protected]
(408) 592-0697
ATTACHMENT 6

"Full" Capital Reserve Plan
Visitacion Gardens Apartments
Brisbane , CA
Report #:

For Period Beginning:

Expires:

Date Prepared:
58592-0
January 1, 2027
December 31, 2027
January 27, 2026
ATTACHMENT 7

T
W
Hello, and welcome to your Capital
Reserve Plan!
his Report is a valuable budget planning tool, for with it you control the future of your property. It contains all the fundamental information needed to understand your
current and future obligations, some of the most significant expenses that ownership will face.
ith respect to Reserves, this Report will tell you
"where you are," and "where to go from here."
In this Report, you will find...
1) A List of What you're Reserving For
2) An Evaluation of your Reserve Fund Size and
Strength
3) A Recommended Multi-Year Reserve Funding Plan
More Questions?
Visit our website at www.reservestudy.com or call us at:
415-694-8931
ATTACHMENT 7

Table of Contents
Executive Summary 4
Reserve Study Summary 4
Reserve Component List 5
Introduction, Objectives, and Methodology 6
Which Physical Assets are Funded by Capital Reserve Funds? 7 How do we establish Useful Life and Remaining Useful Life estimates? 7 How do we establish Current Repair/Replacement Cost Estimates? 7 How much money is enough? 8
How much should we transfer to Reserves? 9
What is our Recommended Funding Goal? 9
Site Inspection Notes 10
Projected Expenses 11
Annual Reserve Expense Graph 11
Reserve Fund Status & Recommended Funding Plan 12
Annual Reserve Funding Graph 12
30-Yr Cash Flow Graph 13
Percent Funded Graph 13
Table Descriptions 14
Budget Summary 15
Reserve Component List Detail 16
Fully Funded Balance 18
Component Significance 20
Accounting & Tax Summary 21
30-Year Reserve Plan Summary 23
30-Year Income/Expense Detail 24
Accuracy, Limitations, and Disclosures 30
Terms and Definitions 31
Component Details 32
Building Exteriors 33
Building Interiors, Common 42
Building Interiors, Units 46
Common Area 47
Mechanical & Systems 55 Association Reserves, #58592-0 3 of 58 1/27/2026 ATTACHMENT 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $542,383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $542,383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.00 % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.00 % 3- Minute Executive Summary
Property: Visitacion Gardens Apartments  Property #: 58592-0 Location: Brisbane , CA # of Units: 1
Report Period: January 1, 2027 through December 31, 2027 Projected Starting Reserve Balance
Current Fully Funded Reserve Balance
Average Reserve Deficit (Surplus) Per Unit
Percent Funded
Recommended 2027 "Monthly Fully Funding Contributions"
Recommended 2027 Special Assessments for Reserves
2026 Monthly Contribution Rate
Reserves % Funded: 0.0%
Special Assessment Risk:
30% 70% 130%
High Medium Low
Economic Assumptions:

Net Annual "After Tax" Interest Earnings Accruing to Reserves Annual Inflation Rate
• This is a "Full" Capital Reserve Plan Reserve Study.
• The information in this Reserve Study is based on our site inspection on 1/12/2026. • This Reserve Study was prepared by a credentialed Reserve Specialist (RS). • Because your Reserve Fund is at 0.0 % Funded, this means the association’s special assessment & deferred maintenance risk is currently High. • Your multi-year Funding Plan is designed to gradually bring you to the 100% level, or "Full Funded".
• Based on this starting point, your anticipated future expenses, and your historical Reserve allocation rate, we recommend setting your Reserve allocations to $6,700 Monthly.
• The Deterioration rate for your Reserve Components is $4,812.50 Monthly. • No assets appropriate for Reserve designation were excluded. • We recommend that this Reserve Study be updated annually, with an on-site inspection update every three years.

Association Reserves, #58592-0 4 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Executive Summary 58592-0
# Component Useful Life (yrs) Rem. Useful
Life (yrs)
Current Average
Cost
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface 40 13 $1,280
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface 40 13 $10,800
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair 5 3 $1,800
118 Balcony Railing - Replace 40 13 $9,600
324 Exterior Lights - Replace 20 15 $8,400
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace 40 13 $12,000
703 Utility Doors - Replace 35 8 $3,000
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint 10 5 $79,500
1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair 10 5 $19,875
1137 Windows - Replace 40 13 $189,000
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace 30 3 $112,500
1308 Flat Roof - Replace 20 3 $40,000
1309 Metal Roof - Replace 40 13 $12,500
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace 5 0 $17,000
Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace 25 5 $3,000
909 Bathroom - Refurbish 20 5 $5,000
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace 10 5 $2,400
912 Kitchen - Remodel 20 5 $10,500
918 Office - Remodel 20 5 $3,500
1110 Community Room - Repaint 10 5 $9,600
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel 1 0 $18,500
Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave 30 25 $20,500
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe 5 4 $2,563
320 Pole Lights - Replace 30 15 $12,000
322 Bollard Lights - Replace 20 5 $7,200
403 Mailboxes - Replace 25 1 $4,200
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace 10 5 $2,000
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace 40 13 $9,500
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace 25 1 $18,500
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace 25 3 $3,000
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair 35 8 $16,500
750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace 40 13 $16,500
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace 12 5 $19,500
803 Water Heaters - Replace 12 6 $27,000
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace 30 3 $15,000
1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair 5 0 $7,000
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace 20 0 $12,000
1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair 15 0 $7,000
38 Total Funded Components
Note 1: Yellow highlighted line items are expected to require attention in this initial year.

Association Reserves, #58592-0 5 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Introduction
A Capital Reserve Plan is the art and science of anticipating, and preparing for, a property's major predictable repair and replacement expenses. Partially art, because in this field we are making projections about the future. Partially science, because our work is a combination of research and welldefined computations, following consistent National Reserve Study Standard principles.

The foundation of this and every Capital Reserve Plan
is your Component List (what you are reserving for).

This is because the Component List defines the scope
and schedule of all your anticipated upcoming major,
predictable capital projects. Based on that List and
your starting balance, we calculate the property
Capital Reserve Fund Strength (reported in terms of
"Percent Funded"). Then we compute a Funding Plan
to provide for the needs of the property. These form
the three results of your Capital Reserve Plan.

Capital Reserve transfers are not “for the future”. Capital Reserve transfers are designed to offset the ongoing, daily deterioration of your Capital Reserve assets. Done well, a stable, budgeted Capital Reserve Funding Plan will collect sufficient funds from the owners who enjoyed the use of those assets, so the property is financially prepared for the irregular expenditures scattered through future years when those projects eventually require replacement.

Methodology
For this Capital Reserve Plan, we started with a
review of ownership boundaries, as detailed by
property, recent Capital expenditures, an
evaluation of how expenditures are handled
(ongoing maintenance vs Capital), and research
into any well-established historical precedents.

We performed an on-site inspection to quantify and evaluate your major predictable, creating your Reserve Component List from scratch.

Association Reserves, #58592-0 6 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Which Physical Assets are Funded by Reserves?
There is a national-standard three-part test to
determine which projects should appear in a
Reserve Component List. First, it must be a
common area maintenance obligation. Second,
both the need and schedule of a component’s
project can be reasonably anticipated. Third, the
project’s total cost is material to the client, can
be reasonably anticipated, and includes all
direct and related costs. A project cost is
commonly considered material if it is more than

0.5% to 1% of the total annual budget. This
limits Reserve components to major, predictable
expenses. Within this framework, it is
inappropriate to include lifetime components,
unpredictable expenses (such as damage due to natural disasters and/or insurable events), and expenses more appropriately handled from the Operational budget.

How do we establish Useful Life and Remaining Useful Life estimates? 1)  Visual Inspection (observed wear and age)
2)  Association Reserves Database and Experience
3)  Property History (install dates & previous life cycle information) 4)  Vendor Evaluation and Recommendation
How do we establish Current Repair/Replacement Cost Estimates? In this order...
1)  Actual property cost history, or current proposals
2)  Comparison to Association Reserves Database of Work Completed at Similar Properties
3)  Vendor Recommendations
4)  Reliable National Industry cost estimating guidebooks Association Reserves, #58592-0 7 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

How much Reserves are enough?
Capital Reserve Fund adequacy is not measured in cash terms. Capital Reserve Fund adequacy is found when the amount of current Capital cash is compared to Capital Reserve asset component deterioration (the needs of the property). Having enough means the property can execute its projects in a timely manner with existing Capital Reserve funds. Not having enough typically creates deferred maintenance or special funding needs.

Adequacy is measured in a two-step process:
1)  Calculate the value of deterioration at the
property (called Fully Funded Balance, or
FFB).
2)  Compare that to the Capital Reserve Fund
Balance, and express as a percentage.

Each year, the value of deterioration at the
property changes. When there is more
deterioration (as components approach the time they need to be replaced), there should be more cash to offset that deterioration and prepare for the expenditure. Conversely, the value of deterioration shrinks after projects are accomplished. The value of deterioration (the FFB) changes each year, and is a moving but predictable target.

There is a high risk of special funding needs and deferred maintenance when the Percent Funded is weak, below 30%. Approximately 30% of all properties are in this high risk range. While the 100% point is Ideal (indicating Reserve cash is equal to the value of deterioration), a Reserve Fund in the 70% - 130% range is considered strong (low risk of special funding needs).

Measuring your Capital Reserve Funds by Percent Funded tells how well prepared your property is for upcoming Reserve expenses. Those charged with maintaining the physical property should be very aware of this important figure!
Association Reserves, #58592-0 8 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

How much should we transfer to Reserves?
According to National Reserve Study Standards, there
are four Funding Principles to balance in developing
your Reserve Funding Plan. Our first objective is to
design a plan that provides you with sufficient cash to perform your Reserve projects on time. Second, a stable rate of ongoing Reserve transfers is desirable because it keeps these naturally irregular expenses from unsettling the budget.

Reserve transfers that are evenly distributed over current and future owners enable each owner to pay their fair share of the property's Reserve expenses over the years. And finally, we develop a plan that is fiscally responsible and safe for Board members to recommend to their property. Remember, it is the Board's job to provide for the ongoing care of the real property that supports your entity mission.

What is our Recommended Funding Goal?
Maintaining the Reserve Fund at a level equal to the
value of deterioration is called "Full Funding" (100%
Funded). As each asset ages and becomes "used up,"
the Reserve Fund grows proportionally. This is simple,
responsible, and our recommendation. Evidence
shows that properties in the 70 - 130% range enjoy a low risk of special funding needs or deferred maintenance.

Allowing the Reserves to fall close to zero, but not below zero, is called Baseline Funding. Doing so allows the Reserve Fund to drop into the 0 - 30% range, where there is a high risk of special funding needs & deferred maintenance. Since Baseline Funding still provides for the timely execution of all Reserve projects, and only the "margin of safety" is different, recommended Reserve transfers for Baseline Funding average only 10% to 15% less than Full Funding recommendations. Threshold Funding is the title of all other Cash or Percent Funded objectives between Baseline Funding and Full Funding.

Association Reserves, #58592-0 9 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Site Inspection Notes
During our site visit on 1/12/2026, we visually inspected the property and were able to see most areas. Please see the Photographic Inventory Appendix at the end of this report for a detailed look at each component.

Association Reserves, #58592-0 10 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Projected Expenses
While this Reserve Study looks forward 30 years, we have no expectation that all these expenses will all take place as anticipated. This Reserve Study needs to be updated annually because we expect the timing of these expenses to shift and the size of these expenses to change. We do feel more certain of the timing and cost of near-term expenses than expenses many years away. Please be aware of your near-term expenses, which we are able to project more accurately than the more distant projections.

The figure below summarizes the projected future expenses at your property as defined by your Reserve Component List. A summary of these components is shown in the Component Details table, while a summary of the expenses themselves are shown in the 30-yr Expense Summary table.

Figure 1
Association Reserves, #58592-0 11 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Reserve Fund Status
The starting point for our financial analysis is your Reserve Fund balance, projected to be $0 as-of the start of your fiscal year. This is based on your actual balance on 12/31/2025 of $0 and anticipated Reserve transfers and expenses projected through the end of your Fiscal Year. As of 1/1/2027, your Fully Funded Balance is computed to be $542,383. (see Acct/Tax Summary table). This figure represents the deteriorated value of your common area components. Comparing your Reserve Balance to your Fully Funded Balance indicates you are 0.0 % Funded.

Recommended Funding Plan
Based on your current Percent Funded and your near-term and long-term Reserve needs, we are recommending budgeted transfers of $6,700/Monthly this Fiscal Year. The overall 30-yr plan, in perspective, is shown below. This same information is shown numerically in both the 30-yr Summary and the Cash Flow Detail tables.

Figure 2
Association Reserves, #58592-0 12 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

The following chart shows your Reserve balance under our recommended Full Funding Plan and at your current budgeted transfer rate, compared to your always-changing Fully Funded Balance target.

Figure 3
This figure shows the same information plotted on a Percent Funded scale. It is clear here to see how your Reserve Fund strength approaches the 100% Funded level under our recommended multi-yr Funding Plan.

Figure 4
Association Reserves, #58592-0 13 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Table Descriptions
Executive Summary is a summary of your Reserve Components Budget Summary is a management and accounting tool, summarizing groupings of your Reserve Components.

Reserve Component List Detail discloses key Component information, providing the foundation upon which the financial analysis is performed.

Fully Funded Balance shows the calculation of the Fully Funded Balance for each of your components, and their specific proportion related to the property total. For each component, the Fully Funded Balance is the fraction of life used up multiplied by its estimated Current Replacement Cost.

Component Significance shows the relative significance of each component to Reserve funding needs of the property, helping you see which components have more (or less) influence than others on your total Reserve funding requirements. The deterioration cost/yr of each component is calculated by dividing the estimated Current Replacement Cost by its Useful Life, then that component’s percentage of the total is displayed.

Accounting & Tax Summary provides information on each Component's proportion of key totals. If shown, the Current Fund Balance is a redistribution of the current Reserve total to near-term (low RUL) projects first.

Any Reserve transfer shown is a portion of the total current transfer rate, assigned proportionally on the basis of that component's deterioration cost/yr. As this is a Cash Flow analysis in which no funds are assigned or restricted to particular components, all values shown are only representative and have no merit outside of tax preparation purposes. They are not useful for Reserve funding calculations.
30-Yr Reserve Plan Summary provides a one-page 30-year summary of the cash flowing into and out of the Reserve Fund, with a display of the Fully Funded Balance, Percent Funded, and special assessment risk at the beginning of each year.
30-Year Income/Expense Detail shows the detailed income and expenses for each of the next 30 years. This table makes it possible to see which components are projected to require repair or replacement in a particular year, and the size of those individual expenses.

Association Reserves, #58592-0 14 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

58592-0
Full
Max Max
40 15 $517,255 $17,000 $0 $365,818 $517,255 $35,965
25 5 $34,000 $0 $0 $22,650 $34,000 $3,160
1 0 $18,500 $18,500 $0 $18,500 $18,500 $25,756
40 25 $112,463 $0 $0 $71,040 $112,463 $5,994
30 6 $87,500 $26,000 $0 $64,375 $87,500 $9,525
$769,718 61,500 0 542,383 769,718 80,400

0.0%
Budget Summary
Useful Life
2027 Rem. Useful
Life
Estimated
Replacement
Cost in 2027
2027
Expenditures
01/01/2027
Current Fund
Balance
01/01/2027
Fully Funded
Balance
Remaining
Bal. to be
Funded 2027 Funding
Min Min
Building
Exteriors 5 0
Building
Interiors,
Common
10 5
Building
Interiors, Units 1 0
Common Area 5 1
Mechanical &
Systems 5 0
$ $ $ $ $
Percent Funded:

Association Reserves, #58592-0 15 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Report # 58592-0
Full Capital Reserve Plan

Reserve Component List Detail
# Component Approx Quantity Useful Life Rem.

Useful Life
Current
Cost
Estimate
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface 32 GSF 40 13 $1,280
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface 360 GSF 40 13 $10,800
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair 360 GSF 5 3 $1,800
118 Balcony Railing - Replace 80 LF 40 13 $9,600
324 Exterior Lights - Replace 28 Fixtures 20 15 $8,400
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace 80 LF 40 13 $12,000 703 Utility Doors - Replace 2 Doors 35 8 $3,000
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint 15,900 GSF 10 5 $79,500 1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair 15,900 GSF 10 5 $19,875 1137 Windows - Replace 126 Windows 40 13 $189,000
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace 7,500 GSF 30 3 $112,500 1308 Flat Roof - Replace 2,000 GSF 20 3 $40,000
1309 Metal Roof - Replace 500 GSF 40 13 $12,500
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace 850 LF x20% 5 0 $17,000 Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace 10 Fixtures 25 5 $3,000
909 Bathroom - Refurbish 1 Bathroom 20 5 $5,000
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace 2 Appliances 10 5 $2,400 912 Kitchen - Remodel 1 Kitchen 20 5 $10,500
918 Office - Remodel 1 Office 20 5 $3,500
1110 Community Room - Repaint 3,200 GSF 10 5 $9,600
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel 1 Unit 1 0 $18,500
Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave 2,050 GSF 30 25 $20,500
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe 2,050 GSF 5 4 $2,563
320 Pole Lights - Replace 4 Pole Lights 30 15 $12,000
322 Bollard Lights - Replace 6 Bollards 20 5 $7,200
403 Mailboxes - Replace 14 Boxes 25 1 $4,200
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace 4 Pieces 10 5 $2,000
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace 95 LF 40 13 $9,500
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace 185 LF 25 1 $18,500
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace 1 Structure 25 3 $3,000
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair 110 LF 35 8 $16,500 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace 3 Gates 40 13 $16,500
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace 3 Intercom 12 5 $19,500
803 Water Heaters - Replace 3 Water Heaters 12 6 $27,000 1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace 1 Device 30 3 $15,000 1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair 1 Allowance 5 0 $7,000
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace 1 System 20 0 $12,000
1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair 1 Allowance 15 0 $7,000 Association Reserves, #58592-0 16 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

38 Total Funded Components
Association Reserves, #58592-0 17 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

58592-0
Full
Fully Funded Balance
Current Fully
Cost Effective Useful Funded
# Component Estimate X Age / Life = Balance
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface $1,280 X 27 / 40 = $864 117 Walkway Decks - Resurface $10,800 X 27 / 40 = $7,290 117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair $1,800 X 2 / 5 = $720
118 Balcony Railing - Replace $9,600 X 27 / 40 = $6,480 324 Exterior Lights - Replace $8,400 X 5 / 20 = $2,100
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace $12,000 X 27 / 40 = $8,100 703 Utility Doors - Replace $3,000 X 27 / 35 = $2,314
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint $79,500 X 5 / 10 = $39,750 1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair $19,875 X 5 / 10 = $9,938 1137 Windows - Replace $189,000 X 27 / 40 = $127,575
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace $112,500 X 27 / 30 = $101,250 1308 Flat Roof - Replace $40,000 X 17 / 20 = $34,000
1309 Metal Roof - Replace $12,500 X 27 / 40 = $8,438
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace $17,000 X 5 / 5 = $17,000 Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace $3,000 X 20 / 25 = $2,400 909 Bathroom - Refurbish $5,000 X 15 / 20 = $3,750
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace $2,400 X 5 / 10 = $1,200 912 Kitchen - Remodel $10,500 X 15 / 20 = $7,875
918 Office - Remodel $3,500 X 15 / 20 = $2,625
1110 Community Room - Repaint $9,600 X 5 / 10 = $4,800
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel $18,500 X 1 / 1 = $18,500
Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave $20,500 X 5 / 30 = $3,417
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe $2,563 X 1 / 5 = $513
320 Pole Lights - Replace $12,000 X 15 / 30 = $6,000
322 Bollard Lights - Replace $7,200 X 15 / 20 = $5,400
403 Mailboxes - Replace $4,200 X 24 / 25 = $4,032
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace $2,000 X 5 / 10 = $1,000 503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace $9,500 X 27 / 40 = $6,413 505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace $18,500 X 24 / 25 = $17,760 509 Decorative Arbor - Replace $3,000 X 22 / 25 = $2,640 514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair $16,500 X 27 / 35 = $12,729 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace $16,500 X 27 / 40 = $11,138 Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace $19,500 X 7 / 12 = $11,375
803 Water Heaters - Replace $27,000 X 6 / 12 = $13,500
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace $15,000 X 27 / 30 = $13,500 1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair $7,000 X 5 / 5 = $7,000
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace $12,000 X 20 / 20 = $12,000 1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair $7,000 X 15 / 15 = $7,000 Association Reserves, #58592-0 18 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

$542,383
Association Reserves, #58592-0 19 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

58592-0
Full
Component Significance
Current Cost Deterioration Deterioration
# Component Useful Life (yrs) Estimate Cost/Yr Significance Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface 40 $1,280 $32 0.06 %
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface 40 $10,800 $270 0.47 %
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair 5 $1,800 $360 0.62 %
118 Balcony Railing - Replace 40 $9,600 $240 0.42 %
324 Exterior Lights - Replace 20 $8,400 $420 0.73 %
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace 40 $12,000 $300 0.52 % 703 Utility Doors - Replace 35 $3,000 $86 0.15 %
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint 10 $79,500 $7,950 13.77 % 1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair 10 $19,875 $1,988 3.44 % 1137 Windows - Replace 40 $189,000 $4,725 8.18 %
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace 30 $112,500 $3,750 6.49 % 1308 Flat Roof - Replace 20 $40,000 $2,000 3.46 %
1309 Metal Roof - Replace 40 $12,500 $313 0.54 %
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace 5 $17,000 $3,400 5.89 % Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace 25 $3,000 $120 0.21 %
909 Bathroom - Refurbish 20 $5,000 $250 0.43 %
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace 10 $2,400 $240 0.42 %
912 Kitchen - Remodel 20 $10,500 $525 0.91 %
918 Office - Remodel 20 $3,500 $175 0.30 %
1110 Community Room - Repaint 10 $9,600 $960 1.66 %
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel 1 $18,500 $18,500 32.03 %
Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave 30 $20,500 $683 1.18 %
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe 5 $2,563 $513 0.89 %
320 Pole Lights - Replace 30 $12,000 $400 0.69 %
322 Bollard Lights - Replace 20 $7,200 $360 0.62 %
403 Mailboxes - Replace 25 $4,200 $168 0.29 %
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace 10 $2,000 $200 0.35 %
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace 40 $9,500 $238 0.41 %
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace 25 $18,500 $740 1.28 %
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace 25 $3,000 $120 0.21 %
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair 35 $16,500 $471 0.82 % 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace 40 $16,500 $413 0.71 %
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace 12 $19,500 $1,625 2.81 %
803 Water Heaters - Replace 12 $27,000 $2,250 3.90 %
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace 30 $15,000 $500 0.87 % 1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair 5 $7,000 $1,400 2.42 %
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace 20 $12,000 $600 1.04 % 1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair 15 $7,000 $467 0.81 % 38 Total Funded Components $57,750 100.00 %
Association Reserves, #58592-0 20 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

58592-0
Full
# UL RUL
Current Cost
Estimate
Fully Funded
Balance
Projected
Reserve
Balance
Proportional
Reserve
Funding
104 40 13 $1,280 $864 $0 $4
117 40 13 $10,800 $7,290 $0 $31
117 5 3 $1,800 $720 $0 $42
118 40 13 $9,600 $6,480 $0 $28
324 20 15 $8,400 $2,100 $0 $49
508 40 13 $12,000 $8,100 $0 $35
703 35 8 $3,000 $2,314 $0 $10
1115 10 5 $79,500 $39,750 $0 $922
1117 10 5 $19,875 $9,938 $0 $231
1137 40 13 $189,000 $127,575 $0 $548
1303 30 3 $112,500 $101,250 $0 $435
1308 20 3 $40,000 $34,000 $0 $232
1309 40 13 $12,500 $8,438 $0 $36
1312 5 0 $17,000 $17,000 $0 $394
325 25 5 $3,000 $2,400 $0 $14
909 20 5 $5,000 $3,750 $0 $29
911 10 5 $2,400 $1,200 $0 $28
912 20 5 $10,500 $7,875 $0 $61
918 20 5 $3,500 $2,625 $0 $20
1110 10 5 $9,600 $4,800 $0 $111
915 1 0 $18,500 $18,500 $0 $2,146
202 30 25 $20,500 $3,417 $0 $79
203 5 4 $2,563 $513 $0 $59
320 30 15 $12,000 $6,000 $0 $46
322 20 5 $7,200 $5,400 $0 $42
403 25 1 $4,200 $4,032 $0 $19
404 10 5 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $23
503 40 13 $9,500 $6,413 $0 $28
505 25 1 $18,500 $17,760 $0 $86
509 25 3 $3,000 $2,640 $0 $14
514 35 8 $16,500 $12,729 $0 $55
750 40 13 $16,500 $11,138 $0 $48
704 12 5 $19,500 $11,375 $0 $189
Accounting & Tax Summary
Component
Building Exteriors
Balcony Surfaces - Resurface
Walkway Decks - Resurface
Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair
Balcony Railing - Replace
Exterior Lights - Replace
Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace
Utility Doors - Replace
Building Exterior - Repaint
Exterior Surfaces - Repair
Windows - Replace
Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace
Flat Roof - Replace
Metal Roof - Replace
Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace
Building Interiors, Common
Interior Lights - Replace
Bathroom - Refurbish
Kitchen Appliances - Replace
Kitchen - Remodel
Office - Remodel
Community Room - Repaint
Building Interiors, Units
Unit - Remodel
Common Area
Asphalt - Repave
Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe
Pole Lights - Replace
Bollard Lights - Replace
Mailboxes - Replace
Outdoor Furniture - Replace
Metal Fence/Gate - Replace
Wood Fence - Repair/Replace
Decorative Arbor - Replace
Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair
Pedestrian Gates - Replace
Mechanical & Systems
Intercom - Replace
Association Reserves, #58592-0 21 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

803 12 6 $27,000 $13,500 $0 $261
1001 30 3 $15,000 $13,500 $0 $58
1811 5 0 $7,000 $7,000 $0 $162
1819 20 0 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $70
1844 15 0 $7,000 $7,000 $0 $54
38 $542,383 $0 $6,700
Water Heaters - Replace
Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace
Plumbing - Inspect/Repair
Fire Alarm System - Replace
Electrical System - Inspect/Repair
Total Funded Components
Association Reserves, #58592-0 22 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

58592-0
Full

2.00 % 4.00 %
30-Year Reserve Plan Summary
Fiscal Year Start: 2027 Net After Tax Interest: Avg 30-Yr Inflation:

Reserve Fund Strength (as-of Fiscal Year Start) Projected Reserve Balance Changes % Increase
Starting Fully Special In Annual Loan or
Reserve Funded Percent Funding
Needs Reserve Reserve Special Interest Reserve
Year Balance Balance Funded Risk Funding Funding Funding Needs Income Expenses
2027 $0 $542,383 0.0 % High 0.00 % $80,400 $100,000 $1,200 $61,500 2028 $120,100 $560,178 21.4 % High 5.00 % $84,420 $0 $2,844 $42,848 2029 $164,516 $600,486 27.4 % High 5.00 % $88,641 $0 $4,013 $20,010 2030 $237,160 $668,656 35.5 % Medium 5.00 % $93,073 $0 $3,560 $214,624 2031 $119,170 $539,752 22.1 % High 5.00 % $97,727 $0 $3,143 $24,641 2032 $195,398 $605,977 32.2 % Medium 5.00 % $102,613 $0 $2,468 $248,897 2033 $51,582 $444,435 11.6 % High 5.00 % $107,744 $0 $1,547 $57,572 2034 $103,302 $478,332 21.6 % High 5.00 % $113,131 $0 $2,981 $24,345 2035 $195,069 $551,182 35.4 % Medium 5.00 % $118,787 $0 $4,586 $54,469 2036 $263,974 $598,777 44.1 % Medium 5.00 % $124,727 $0 $6,284 $29,979 2037 $365,006 $677,033 53.9 % Medium 2.50 % $127,845 $0 $8,023 $62,910 2038 $437,963 $727,591 60.2 % Medium 2.50 % $131,041 $0 $9,875 $28,480 2039 $550,399 $819,535 67.2 % Medium 2.50 % $134,317 $0 $12,166 $29,619 2040 $667,263 $917,670 72.7 % Low 2.50 % $137,675 $0 $10,128 $468,685 2041 $346,381 $566,948 61.1 % Medium 2.50 % $141,117 $0 $8,048 $36,474 2042 $459,071 $655,697 70.0 % Low 2.50 % $144,645 $0 $7,395 $330,068 2043 $281,043 $446,818 62.9 % Medium 2.50 % $148,261 $0 $6,819 $34,650 2044 $401,473 $541,146 74.2 % Low 2.50 % $151,967 $0 $8,890 $74,020 2045 $488,310 $602,801 81.0 % Low 2.50 % $155,767 $0 $10,461 $95,821 2046 $558,717 $648,929 86.1 % Low 2.50 % $159,661 $0 $12,441 $44,377 2047 $686,442 $755,271 90.9 % Low 2.50 % $163,652 $0 $14,302 $119,416 2048 $744,980 $792,888 94.0 % Low 2.50 % $167,744 $0 $16,304 $42,157 2049 $886,871 $917,622 96.6 % Low 2.50 % $171,937 $0 $19,194 $43,843 2050 $1,034,158 $1,051,066 98.4 % Low 2.50 % $176,236 $0 $21,152 $148,622 2051 $1,082,924 $1,086,572 99.7 % Low 2.50 % $180,642 $0 $23,136 $53,991 2052 $1,232,711 $1,227,835 100.4 % Low 2.50 % $185,158 $0 $21,300 $540,032 2053 $899,137 $875,425 102.7 % Low 2.50 % $189,787 $0 $18,911 $114,226 2054 $993,609 $958,161 103.7 % Low 2.50 % $194,531 $0 $21,480 $53,342 2055 $1,156,278 $1,114,186 103.8 % Low 2.50 % $199,395 $0 $24,646 $69,870 2056 $1,310,449 $1,266,190 103.5 % Low 2.50 % $204,379 $0 $27,237 $126,502 Association Reserves, #58592-0 23 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

58592-0
Full
30-Year Income/Expense Detail (yrs 0 through 4)
Fiscal Year 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Starting Reserve Balance $0 $120,100 $164,516 $237,160 $119,170 Annual Reserve Funding $80,400 $84,420 $88,641 $93,073 $97,727 Recommended Special Assessments $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest Earnings $1,200 $2,844 $4,013 $3,560 $3,143
Total Income $181,600 $207,364 $257,170 $333,794 $220,039 # Component
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair $0 $0 $0 $2,025 $0
118 Balcony Railing - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
324 Exterior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
703 Utility Doors - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1137 Windows - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace $0 $0 $0 $126,547 $0
1308 Flat Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $44,995 $0
1309 Metal Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace $17,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
909 Bathroom - Refurbish $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
912 Kitchen - Remodel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
918 Office - Remodel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1110 Community Room - Repaint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel $18,500 $19,240 $20,010 $20,810 $21,642 Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,998
320 Pole Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
322 Bollard Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
403 Mailboxes - Replace $0 $4,368 $0 $0 $0
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace $0 $19,240 $0 $0 $0
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace $0 $0 $0 $3,375 $0
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
803 Water Heaters - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace $0 $0 $0 $16,873 $0 1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses $61,500 $42,848 $20,010 $214,624 $24,641 Ending Reserve Balance $120,100 $164,516 $237,160 $119,170 $195,398 Association Reserves, #58592-0 24 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Fiscal Year 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Starting Reserve Balance $195,398 $51,582 $103,302 $195,069 $263,974 Annual Reserve Funding $102,613 $107,744 $113,131 $118,787 $124,727 Recommended Special Assessments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest Earnings $2,468 $1,547 $2,981 $4,586 $6,284
Total Income $300,479 $160,874 $219,414 $318,443 $394,985 # Component
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair $0 $0 $0 $2,463 $0
118 Balcony Railing - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
324 Exterior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
703 Utility Doors - Replace $0 $0 $0 $4,106 $0
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint $96,724 $0 $0 $0 $0
1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair $24,181 $0 $0 $0 $0
1137 Windows - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1308 Flat Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1309 Metal Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace $20,683 $0 $0 $0 $0 Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace $3,650 $0 $0 $0 $0
909 Bathroom - Refurbish $6,083 $0 $0 $0 $0
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace $2,920 $0 $0 $0 $0
912 Kitchen - Remodel $12,775 $0 $0 $0 $0
918 Office - Remodel $4,258 $0 $0 $0 $0
1110 Community Room - Repaint $11,680 $0 $0 $0 $0
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel $22,508 $23,408 $24,345 $25,319 $26,331 Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,648
320 Pole Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
322 Bollard Lights - Replace $8,760 $0 $0 $0 $0
403 Mailboxes - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace $2,433 $0 $0 $0 $0
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair $0 $0 $0 $22,581 $0 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace $23,725 $0 $0 $0 $0
803 Water Heaters - Replace $0 $34,164 $0 $0 $0
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair $8,517 $0 $0 $0 $0
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses $248,897 $57,572 $24,345 $54,469 $29,979 Ending Reserve Balance $51,582 $103,302 $195,069 $263,974 $365,006 Association Reserves, #58592-0 25 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Fiscal Year 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
Starting Reserve Balance $365,006 $437,963 $550,399 $667,263 $346,381 Annual Reserve Funding $127,845 $131,041 $134,317 $137,675 $141,117 Recommended Special Assessments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest Earnings $8,023 $9,875 $12,166 $10,128 $8,048
Total Income $500,873 $578,879 $696,882 $815,066 $495,546 # Component
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $2,131 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $17,983 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair $0 $0 $0 $2,997 $0
118 Balcony Railing - Replace $0 $0 $0 $15,985 $0
324 Exterior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $19,981 $0 703 Utility Doors - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1137 Windows - Replace $0 $0 $0 $314,699 $0
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1308 Flat Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1309 Metal Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $20,813 $0
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace $25,164 $0 $0 $0 $0 Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
909 Bathroom - Refurbish $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
912 Kitchen - Remodel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
918 Office - Remodel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1110 Community Room - Repaint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel $27,385 $28,480 $29,619 $30,804 $32,036 Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,438
320 Pole Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
322 Bollard Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
403 Mailboxes - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace $0 $0 $0 $15,818 $0
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace $0 $0 $0 $27,474 $0
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
803 Water Heaters - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair $10,362 $0 $0 $0 $0
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses $62,910 $28,480 $29,619 $468,685 $36,474 Ending Reserve Balance $437,963 $550,399 $667,263 $346,381 $459,071 Association Reserves, #58592-0 26 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Fiscal Year 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046
Starting Reserve Balance $459,071 $281,043 $401,473 $488,310 $558,717 Annual Reserve Funding $144,645 $148,261 $151,967 $155,767 $159,661 Recommended Special Assessments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest Earnings $7,395 $6,819 $8,890 $10,461 $12,441
Total Income $611,111 $436,123 $562,331 $654,538 $730,819 # Component
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair $0 $0 $0 $3,646 $0
118 Balcony Railing - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
324 Exterior Lights - Replace $15,128 $0 $0 $0 $0
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
703 Utility Doors - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint $143,175 $0 $0 $0 $0
1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair $35,794 $0 $0 $0 $0
1137 Windows - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1308 Flat Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1309 Metal Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace $30,616 $0 $0 $0 $0 Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
909 Bathroom - Refurbish $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace $4,322 $0 $0 $0 $0
912 Kitchen - Remodel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
918 Office - Remodel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1110 Community Room - Repaint $17,289 $0 $0 $0 $0
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel $33,317 $34,650 $36,036 $37,478 $38,977 Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,400
320 Pole Lights - Replace $21,611 $0 $0 $0 $0
322 Bollard Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
403 Mailboxes - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace $3,602 $0 $0 $0 $0
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace $0 $0 $37,984 $0 $0
803 Water Heaters - Replace $0 $0 $0 $54,697 $0
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair $12,607 $0 $0 $0 $0
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair $12,607 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses $330,068 $34,650 $74,020 $95,821 $44,377 Ending Reserve Balance $281,043 $401,473 $488,310 $558,717 $686,442 Association Reserves, #58592-0 27 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Fiscal Year 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051
Starting Reserve Balance $686,442 $744,980 $886,871 $1,034,158 $1,082,924 Annual Reserve Funding $163,652 $167,744 $171,937 $176,236 $180,642 Recommended Special Assessments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest Earnings $14,302 $16,304 $19,194 $21,152 $23,136 Total Income $864,396 $929,028 $1,078,002 $1,231,547 $1,286,702 # Component
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair $0 $0 $0 $4,436 $0
118 Balcony Railing - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
324 Exterior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
703 Utility Doors - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1137 Windows - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1308 Flat Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $98,589 $0
1309 Metal Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace $37,249 $0 $0 $0 $0 Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
909 Bathroom - Refurbish $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
912 Kitchen - Remodel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
918 Office - Remodel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1110 Community Room - Repaint $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel $40,536 $42,157 $43,843 $45,597 $47,421 Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,570
320 Pole Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
322 Bollard Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
403 Mailboxes - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
803 Water Heaters - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair $15,338 $0 $0 $0 $0
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace $26,293 $0 $0 $0 $0
1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses $119,416 $42,157 $43,843 $148,622 $53,991 Ending Reserve Balance $744,980 $886,871 $1,034,158 $1,082,924 $1,232,711 Association Reserves, #58592-0 28 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Fiscal Year 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056
Starting Reserve Balance $1,232,711 $899,137 $993,609 $1,156,278 $1,310,449 Annual Reserve Funding $185,158 $189,787 $194,531 $199,395 $204,379 Recommended Special Assessments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest Earnings $21,300 $18,911 $21,480 $24,646 $27,237 Total Income $1,439,169 $1,107,835 $1,209,620 $1,380,319 $1,542,065 # Component
Building Exteriors
104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Resurface $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair $0 $0 $0 $5,398 $0
118 Balcony Railing - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
324 Exterior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
703 Utility Doors - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1115 Building Exterior - Repaint $211,934 $0 $0 $0 $0
1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair $52,983 $0 $0 $0 $0
1137 Windows - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1308 Flat Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1309 Metal Roof - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace $45,319 $0 $0 $0 $0 Building Interiors, Common
325 Interior Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
909 Bathroom - Refurbish $13,329 $0 $0 $0 $0
911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace $6,398 $0 $0 $0 $0
912 Kitchen - Remodel $27,991 $0 $0 $0 $0
918 Office - Remodel $9,330 $0 $0 $0 $0
1110 Community Room - Repaint $25,592 $0 $0 $0 $0
Building Interiors, Units
915 Unit - Remodel $49,318 $51,291 $53,342 $55,476 $57,695 Common Area
202 Asphalt - Repave $54,650 $0 $0 $0 $0
203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,993
320 Pole Lights - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
322 Bollard Lights - Replace $19,194 $0 $0 $0 $0
403 Mailboxes - Replace $0 $11,644 $0 $0 $0
404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace $5,332 $0 $0 $0 $0
503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace $0 $51,291 $0 $0 $0
509 Decorative Arbor - Replace $0 $0 $0 $8,996 $0
514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mechanical & Systems
704 Intercom - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,814
803 Water Heaters - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair $18,661 $0 $0 $0 $0
1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses $540,032 $114,226 $53,342 $69,870 $126,502 Ending Reserve Balance $899,137 $993,609 $1,156,278 $1,310,449 $1,415,563 Association Reserves, #58592-0 29 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Accuracy, Limitations, and Disclosures
Association Reserves and its employees have no ownership, management, or other business relationships with the client beyond this Reserve Study engagement. Derek Eckert, R.S., company president, is a credentialed Reserve Specialist (#114). All work performed by Association Reserves adheres to National Reserve Study Standards (NRSS) under his Responsible Charge. To our knowledge, no material issues have been withheld that would distort the client’s situation.

This Reserve Study relies on information provided by representatives of the client, vendors, and suppliers regarding financial details, component quantities, maintenance plans, contracts, and historical conditions.

This information is deemed reliable but is not audited or independently verified. Our work is for budgeting purposes only and is not intended to be used for the purpose of any type of audit, quality inspections, forensic analysis, background checks of historical records, or the identification of construction defects, hazardous materials, or dangerous conditions.

Estimates for interest and inflation have been included because including such estimates is more accurate than ignoring them completely. Clients who engage us for update reports are considered to have deemed prior component quantities and other prior Reserve Study data accurate unless otherwise noted. During inspections, our company standard is to establish measurements within a 5% margin of error, and our scope includes visual inspection of accessible areas and components and does not include any destructive or other testing. Our opinions on Useful Life, Remaining Useful Life, and cost estimates are not guarantees of actual costs or timing and assume proper installation, maintenance, and a stable economic environment.

We recommend developing a preventive maintenance plan in conjunction with the Reserve Study to minimize costs and maximize life cycles. We can only adjust the Reserve Study as needed if the client provides such plans. Structural inspections are recommended to identify costs for reserve planning, and we recommend consulting subject matter experts for such evaluations. Corrective maintenance costs and timing can only be incorporated per the results of these engagements if the information is provided by the client.

No preventive maintenance plan or structural inspection report has been discussed or provided unless otherwise noted.

Identifying hidden issues, such as but not limited to, plumbing, electrical, and structural problems, is outside our scope of work. We recommend engaging subject matter experts to evaluate all issues outside the scope of the Reserve Study and our expertise.

Components included in this study usually have an anticipated remaining useful life within 30 years from the time of field observations. Information provided by the client about ongoing maintenance or repairs is included in component notes for full or site-visit reserve studies.

Because the physical and financial status of the property, legislation, the economy, weather, owner expectations, and usage are all in a continual state of change over which we have no control, we do not expect that the events projected in this document will all occur exactly planned. This Reserve Study is a “oneyear” document that needs to be updated annually to incorporate more accurate estimates. A long-term perspective improves the accuracy of near-term planning that this report projects expenses for the future.

We fully expect a number of adjustments will be necessary through the interim years to the cost and timing of expense projections and the funding necessary to prepare for those estimated expenses.

In this engagement, our compensation is not contingent upon our conclusions, and our liability in any matter involving this Reserve Study is limited to our fee for services rendered.

The re-use of this Reserve Study, figures, or calculations in any other format absolves Association Reserves of all responsibility.

Association Reserves, #58592-0 30 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

BTU British Thermal Unit (a standard unit of energy)
DIA Diameter
GSF Gross Square Feet (area). Equivalent to Square Feet GSY Gross Square Yards (area). Equivalent to Square Yards HP Horsepower
LF Linear Feet (length)
UOM Unit of Measure
Effective Age The difference between Useful Life and Remaining Useful Life.

Note that this is not necessarily equivalent to the chronological age of the component.

Fully Funded Balance (FFB) The value of the deterioration of the Reserve Components.

This is the fraction of life "used up" of each component multiplied by its estimated Current Replacement. While
calculated for each component, it is summed together for a property total.

Inflation Cost factors are adjusted for inflation at the rate defined in the Executive Summary and compounded annually. These
increasing costs can be seen as you follow the recurring cycles of a component on the "30-yr Income/Expense Detail" table.

Interest Interest earnings on Reserve Funds are calculated using the average balance for the year (taking into account income and expenses through the year) and compounded monthly using the rate defined in the Executive Summary. Annual interest earning assumption appears in the Executive Summary.

Percent Funded The ratio, at a particular point in time (the first day of the Fiscal Year), of the actual (or projected) Reserve Balance to the Fully Funded Balance, expressed as a percentage.

Remaining Useful Life (RUL) The estimated time, in years, that a common area component can be expected to continue to serve its intended function.

Useful Life (UL) The estimated time, in years, that a common area component can be expected to serve its intended function.

Terms and Definitions
Association Reserves, #58592-0 31 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Component Details
The primary purpose of the Component Details appendix is to provide the reader with the basis of our funding assumptions resulting from our physical analysis and subsequent research. The Component Details herein represent a wide range of components that were observed and measured against National Reserve Study Standards to determine if they meet the criteria for reserve funding. 1) Common area maintenance repair & replacement responsibility 2) The component must have a limited life
3) Life limit must be predictable
4) Above a minimum threshold cost (board’s discretion – typically ½ to 1% of annual operating expenses).

Some components are recommended for reserve funding, while others are not. The components that meet these criteria in our judgment are shown with corresponding maintenance, repair, or replacement cycles (UL = Useful Life of how often the project is expected to occur, RUL = Remaining Useful Life pr how many years from our reporting period) and representative market cost range termed “Best Cost” and “Worst Cost”.

There are many factors that can result in a wide variety of potential costs, we are attempting to represent a market to be a one-time expense. Where no pricing, the component is deemed inappropriate for Reserve Funding.

Association Reserves, #58592-0 32 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 104 Balcony Surfaces - Resurface Approx Quantity: 32 GSF Useful Life:
40 years
Remaining Life:
13 years
Lower Estimate: $ 1,150 Higher Estimate: $ 1,410
Building Exteriors
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: There are (4) 8'x4' Decks. Decking surfaces typically need to be recoated every few years to restore the "wear" layer and protect the waterproofing membrane. Conditions can vary in different areas based on sun and weather exposure, adequacy of drainage, level of foot traffic, etc. Re-coating will restore the deck's aesthetic appeal while bridging small surface cracks. Lack of proper coating can reduce the decking system's life expectancy. Before recoating, the deck should be repaired (cracks and gouges patched, etc.).

Comp #: 104 Balcony Surfaces - Seal/Repair Approx Quantity: 32 GSF Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: No. The project cost estimate is below a minimum threshold. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: There are (4) 8'x4' Decks. Decking surfaces typically need to be recoated every few years to restore the "wear" layer and protect the waterproofing membrane. Conditions can vary in different areas based on sun and weather exposure, adequacy of drainage, level of foot traffic, etc. Re-coating will restore the deck's aesthetic appeal while bridging small surface cracks. Lack of proper coating can reduce the decking system's life expectancy. Before recoating, the deck should be repaired (cracks and gouges patched, etc.).

Cost Source:

Association Reserves, #58592-0 33 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 117 Walkway Decks - Resurface Approx Quantity: 360 GSF Useful Life:
40 years
Remaining Life:
13 years
Lower Estimate: $ 9,720 Higher Estimate: $ 11,900
Comp #: 117 Walkway Decks - Seal/Repair Approx Quantity: 360 GSF Useful Life:
5 years
Remaining Life:
3 years
Lower Estimate: $ 1,620 Higher Estimate: $ 1,980
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: The client should consult with a decking or waterproofing contractor when evaluating the scope of work to properly define any necessary structural repairs/restoration. The funding recommendations shown here should be updated based on any new analysis/information provided by more comprehensive evaluations.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: The client should consult with a decking or waterproofing contractor when evaluating the scope of work to properly define any necessary structural repairs/restoration. The funding recommendations shown here should be updated based on any new analysis/information provided by more comprehensive evaluations.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 34 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 118 Balcony Railing - Replace Approx Quantity: 80 LF Useful Life:
40 years
Remaining Life:
13 years
Lower Estimate: $ 8,640 Higher Estimate: $ 10,600
Comp #: 119 Balcony Railing - Repaint Approx Quantity: 80 LF Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: Inspect regularly to ensure the stability of the railing. A durable and typically long-lived component with ordinary care and maintenance. However, we recommend setting aside funding for eventual replacement at the interval below. We recommend regular painting to maximize the useful life of the railing.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Common area
Funded?: No. The project cost estimate is below a minimum threshold. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments:

Cost Source:

Association Reserves, #58592-0 35 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 324 Exterior Lights - Replace Approx Quantity: 28 Fixtures Useful Life:
20 years
Remaining Life:
15 years
Lower Estimate: $ 7,560 Higher Estimate: $ 9,240
Comp #: 508 Exterior Railing - Repair/Replace Approx Quantity: 80 LF Useful Life:
40 years
Remaining Life:
13 years
Lower Estimate: $ 10,800 Higher Estimate: $ 13,200
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: The wall lights were observed during daylight hours and assumed to be in functional operating condition. As routine maintenance, clean by wiping down with an appropriate cleaner, change bulbs, and repair as needed. For cost efficiency and consistent quality/appearance throughout the property, it is best to plan for replacement at the interval below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: Inspect regularly to ensure the stability of the railing. A durable and typically long-lived component with ordinary care and maintenance. However, we recommend setting aside funding for eventual replacement at the interval indicated below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 36 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 701 Unit Doors - Replace Approx Quantity: 1 Doors Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Comp #: 703 Utility Doors - Replace Approx Quantity: 2 Doors Useful Life:
35 years
Remaining Life:
8 years
Lower Estimate: $ 2,700 Higher Estimate: $ 3,300
Location:

Funded?: No. The useful life of this component extends past the scope of this report. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: We were not able to test the doors during the site inspection. However, they appear to be intact and have a satisfactory seal. Doors should be inspected and repaired as needed, as an Operating expense, to ensure good function. This component provides funding for replacement at the interval below.

Cost Source:

Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: The doors appear to be functional. No indications of advanced deterioration noted. Doors should be inspected and repaired as needed, as an Operating expense, to ensure good function. We recommend setting aside funding for replacement at the interval below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 37 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1115 Building Exterior - Repaint Approx Quantity: 15,900 GSF Useful Life:
10 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 71,600 Higher Estimate: $ 87,500
Comp #: 1117 Exterior Surfaces - Repair Approx Quantity: 15,900 GSF Useful Life:
10 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 17,900 Higher Estimate: $ 21,900
Location: Building exterior surfaces
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Painting is recommended at the intervals below to preserve the exterior building surfaces and maintain appearance.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Building exterior surfaces
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Funding is recommended for partial wood replacement due to the potential for termite damage, wood rot, and natural deterioration. Coordinate with painting for cost efficiency. We recommend an inspection by a licensed professional before painting to determine the scope of needed repairs. Adjust funding as future conditions dictate.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 38 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1137 Windows - Replace Approx Quantity: 126 Windows Useful Life:
40 years
Remaining Life:
13 years
Lower Estimate: $ 170,000 Higher Estimate: $ 208,000
Comp #: 1303 Comp Shingle Roofs - Replace Approx Quantity: 7,500 GSF Useful Life:
30 years
Remaining Life:
3 years
Lower Estimate: $ 101,000 Higher Estimate: $ 124,000
Location: Building exterior
Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: Inspect regularly and handle minor repairs as an operating expense. This component provides funding for replacement at the interval outlined below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Building roof
Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: We recommend regular inspections by a licensed professional to ensure the roof is fully functional and aging correctly. Avoid debris buildup to maximize the useful life of the surface.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 39 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1308 Flat Roof - Replace Approx Quantity: 2,000 GSF Useful Life:
20 years
Remaining Life:
3 years
Lower Estimate: $ 36,000 Higher Estimate: $ 44,000
Comp #: 1309 Metal Roof - Replace Approx Quantity: 500 GSF Useful Life:
40 years
Remaining Life:
13 years
Lower Estimate: $ 11,300 Higher Estimate: $ 13,800
Location: Building roof
Funded?: Yes.

History: Repaired in 2025
Comments: Minor repairs in 2025. We recommend regular inspections by a licensed professional to ensure the roof is fully functional and aging correctly. Avoid debris buildup to maximize the useful life of the surface.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Building roof
Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: We recommend regular inspections by a licensed professional to ensure the roof is fully functional and aging correctly. Avoid debris buildup to maximize the useful life of the surface.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 40 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1312 Gutters/Downspouts - Partial Replace Approx Quantity: 850 LF x20% Useful Life:
5 years
Remaining Life:
0 years
Lower Estimate: $ 15,300 Higher Estimate: $ 18,700
Comp #: 1405 Building Signs - Replace Approx Quantity: 2 Misc. Signs Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Location: Perimeter of building
Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: Most fair, some in poor condition. Inspect regularly, keep gutters and downspouts free of debris to ensure water evacuates from rooftops as designed, and repair as needed from general operating funds. Planning for replacement at the same intervals as roof replacement, cost efficiency is best.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Throughout building
Funded?: No. Replace as an Operating Expense. No funding provided.

History:

Comments: We recommend replacing all signs at one time to maintain a uniform appearance. This component provides an allowance for replacement at the interval outlined below.

Cost Source:

Association Reserves, #58592-0 41 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 325 Interior Lights - Replace Approx Quantity: 10 Fixtures Useful Life:
25 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 2,700 Higher Estimate: $ 3,300
Comp #: 909 Bathroom - Refurbish Approx Quantity: 1 Bathroom Useful Life:
20 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 4,500 Higher Estimate: $ 5,500
Building Interiors, Common
Location: Community room
Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: As routine maintenance, clean by wiping down with an appropriate cleaner, change bulbs, and repair as needed. For cost efficiency and consistent quality/appearance throughout the property, it is best to plan for replacement at the interval below.

The best practice is to coordinate replacement at the same time as other interior projects, such as painting, whenever possible, to minimize downtime and maintain consistent quality standards.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Community room
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: As routine maintenance, inspect regularly and perform any needed repairs promptly, utilizing general Operating funds. A typical remodeling project can include some or all of the following: replacement of plumbing fixtures, partitions, countertops, lighting, flooring, ventilation fans, accessories, décor, etc. The timing of the bathroom refurbishment highly depends on the client's desired aesthetics. This component provides an allowance for general refurbishment at the interval indicated below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 42 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 911 Kitchen Appliances - Replace Approx Quantity: 2 Appliances Useful Life:
10 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 2,160 Higher Estimate: $ 2,640
Comp #: 912 Kitchen - Remodel Approx Quantity: 1 Kitchen Useful Life:
20 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 9,450 Higher Estimate: $ 11,600
Location: Community room
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Replacement should ideally be coordinated with kitchen refurbishing. The funding recommendation shown here is for replacing with comparable quality appliances.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Community room kitchen
Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: Kitchen materials typically have an extended useful life. However, many properties choose to refurbish the kitchen for aesthetic updates periodically. This may include refurbishing or refinishing kitchen cabinets and countertops, replacing sinks, installing or replacing under-cabinet lighting, etc. The timing of the kitchen refurbishment is highly dependent on the level of aesthetics desired by the client. This component provides an allowance for general refurbishment at the interval indicated below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 43 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 918 Office - Remodel Approx Quantity: 1 Office
Useful Life:
20 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 3,150 Higher Estimate: $ 3,850
Comp #: 920 Office Equipment - Replace Approx Quantity: 1 Allowance Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Location: Community room office
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Inspect regularly and repair or replace any damaged pieces promptly to ensure safety. We recommend replacing all pieces together to maintain a consistent style. Costs may vary based on the quality of furniture selected for replacement.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Community room office
Funded?: No. Replacement handled out of the Operating budget. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: Inspect regularly and repair or replace any damaged pieces as needed. We recommend replacing all pieces together to maintain a consistent style. Costs may vary based on the quality selected for replacement.

Cost Source:

Association Reserves, #58592-0 44 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 925 Laundry Room - Remodel Approx Quantity: 1 Laundry Room Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Comp #: 1110 Community Room - Repaint Approx Quantity: 3,200 GSF Useful Life:
10 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 8,640 Higher Estimate: $ 10,600
Location: Laundry room
Funded?: No. Handled out of the Operating budget. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: Based on our experience with other associations, laundry rooms should be remodeled at the approximate interval below. Remodeling typically includes replacing flooring and finishes (wall coverings, etc.), painting, and installing/replacing lighting, countertops, etc. Costs can vary depending on the type and quality of replacement materials.

Cost Source:

Location: Community room
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: We recommend regular painting at the intervals below to maintain an attractive, uniform appearance. If possible, painting should be coordinated with flooring replacement. Touch-up paint should be kept on-site for projects in between cycles.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 45 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 915 Unit - Remodel Approx Quantity: 1 Unit
Useful Life:
1 years
Remaining Life:
0 years
Lower Estimate: $ 16,700 Higher Estimate: $ 20,400
Building Interiors, Units
Location: Building interior surfaces
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Funding provided to remodel (1) of (14) Units per year. Includes funding to repaint, replace flooring, and replace appliances. Remodeling is prudent to maintain an attractive, desirable appearance for residents. Life estimates can vary greatly depending on the level of wear and the client's preferences. Similarly, costs can vary greatly depending on the types of materials selected for replacement. The funding recommendation is for remodeling to an appropriate standard for this property.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 46 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 103 Concrete - Repair Approx Quantity: 1 GSF
Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Comp #: 202 Asphalt - Repave Approx Quantity: 2,050 GSF Useful Life:
30 years
Remaining Life:
25 years
Lower Estimate: $ 18,500 Higher Estimate: $ 22,600
Common Area
Location:

Funded?: No. Repair handled out of the Operating budget. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: Large-scale repairs or complete replacement should not be anticipated, but moderate-sized projects should be considered as the concrete ages. Although timing, cost, and scope are difficult to predict, we suggest setting aside a repair/replacement allowance to supplement the operating budget in future years. Adjust as conditions dictate in future years.

Avoid adjacent overwatering of the landscape and monitor any tree roots nearby.

Cost Source:

Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: We recommend having the surface sealed and repaired; regular cycles of seal coating are recommended for maximum design life. As routine maintenance, keep the roadway clean, debris-free, and well-drained; fill/seal cracks to prevent water from penetrating the sub-base and accelerating damage. Even with ordinary care and maintenance, plan for eventual resurfacing at roughly the time frame below. As the timing draws nearer, consult an asphalt vendor/consultant for recommendations and a complete scope.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 47 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 203 Asphalt - Seal/Repair/Stripe Approx Quantity: 2,050 GSF Useful Life:
5 years
Remaining Life:
4 years
Lower Estimate: $ 2,310 Higher Estimate: $ 2,820
Comp #: 320 Pole Lights - Replace Approx Quantity: 4 Pole Lights Useful Life:
30 years
Remaining Life:
15 years
Lower Estimate: $ 10,800 Higher Estimate: $ 13,200
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Resealed in 2025
Comments: Regular cycles of seal coating, along with any needed repairs, have proven to be the most cost-effective program for the long-term care of asphalt. Seal coating protects against damaging weather elements while bridging small surface cracks and maintaining a uniform appearance over the inevitable patching and repairs needed in future years.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: The pole lights were observed during daylight hours and assumed to be in functional operating condition. Inspect, repair, and change the bulbs as routine maintenance as needed. For cost efficiency and consistent quality/appearance throughout the property, it is best to plan for replacement at the interval below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 48 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 322 Bollard Lights - Replace Approx Quantity: 6 Bollards Useful Life:
20 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 6,480 Higher Estimate: $ 7,920
Comp #: 403 Mailboxes - Replace Approx Quantity: 14 Boxes Useful Life:
25 years
Remaining Life:
1 years
Lower Estimate: $ 3,780 Higher Estimate: $ 4,620
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: The bollard lights were observed during daylight hours and assumed to be in functional operating condition. Inspect, repair, and change the bulbs as routine maintenance as needed. For cost efficiency and consistent quality/appearance throughout the property, it is best to plan for replacement at the interval below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in 2000
Comments: No signs of significant damage or abuse noted. As routine maintenance, inspect regularly, clean by wiping down for appearance, change lock cylinders, lubricate hinges, and handle repairs as an operating expense as needed. We recommend setting aside funding for replacement at the interval outlined below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 49 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 404 Outdoor Furniture - Replace Approx Quantity: 4 Pieces Useful Life:
10 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 1,800 Higher Estimate: $ 2,200
Comp #: 503 Metal Fence/Gate - Replace Approx Quantity: 95 LF Useful Life:
40 years
Remaining Life:
13 years
Lower Estimate: $ 8,550 Higher Estimate: $ 10,500
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Inspect regularly and repair or replace any damaged pieces promptly to ensure safety. We recommend replacing all pieces together to maintain a consistent style. Costs may vary based on the quality of furniture selected for replacement. This component provides an allowance for replacement at the interval below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: Inspect regularly to ensure the stability of fencing. A durable and typically long-lived component with ordinary care and maintenance. However, we recommend setting aside funding for eventual replacement at the interval below. We recommend regular painting to maximize the useful life of the metal.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 50 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 505 Wood Fence - Repair/Replace Approx Quantity: 185 LF Useful Life:
25 years
Remaining Life:
1 years
Lower Estimate: $ 16,700 Higher Estimate: $ 20,400
Comp #: 509 Decorative Arbor - Replace Approx Quantity: 1 Structure Useful Life:
25 years
Remaining Life:
3 years
Lower Estimate: $ 2,700 Higher Estimate: $ 3,300
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: As routine maintenance, inspect regularly for any damage, repair as needed, and avoid contact with irrigation and surrounding vegetation wherever possible. Plan to replace at roughly the time frame below, with funding included here for a similar wood fence replacement. Regular cycles of uniform and professional sealing/painting will help to maintain appearance and maximize life.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: With ordinary care and maintenance, plan for replacement at roughly the interval indicated below due to deterioration resulting from constant exposure to the elements. Local repairs between large-scale replacements can be handled as an operating expense.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 51 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 514 Wood Retaining Wall - Replace/Repair Approx Quantity: 110 LF Useful Life:
35 years
Remaining Life:
8 years
Lower Estimate: $ 14,900 Higher Estimate: $ 18,200
Comp #: 750 Pedestrian Gates - Replace Approx Quantity: 3 Gates Useful Life:
40 years
Remaining Life:
13 years
Lower Estimate: $ 14,900 Higher Estimate: $ 18,200
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: Conditions vary by location. This component provides funding for repair/replacement. Adjust funding as future conditions dictate.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: A sturdy item that can typically last for an extended period with ordinary care and maintenance. In our experience, however, eventual replacement is warranted due to constant wear, usage, and exposure. Plan to replace at roughly the time frame below. Inspect regularly, clean for appearance, and repair promptly to ensure safety. We recommend regular painting to maximize the useful life of the gate.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 52 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1006 Irrigation System - Repair/Replace Approx Quantity: 1 Irrigation System Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Comp #: 1008 Trees - Trim/Remove Approx Quantity: 1 Allowance Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Location: Common area landscaping
Funded?: No. Handle replenishment out of the Operating budget. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: If properly installed and bedded without defect, the lines are expected to be long-lived, with no predictable replacement expectation. In our experience, however, renovations, repairs, zone reconfiguration, etc., become necessary as the system ages. This component provides a rotating funding allowance to supplement the operating/maintenance budget for periodic, more significant repairs and replacements. Adjust as conditions and actual expense patterns dictate in future reserve study updates.

Cost Source:

Location: Common area landscaping
Funded?: No. Handle replenishment out of the Operating budget. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: This component may be utilized for larger tree removal/trimming projects that are not handled as operating expenses. If the community has not already done so, consult with a qualified arborist to develop a long-term plan for caring for and managing the trees within the community, balancing aesthetics with protecting property assets.

Cost Source:

Association Reserves, #58592-0 53 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1009 Landscaping - Replenish Approx Quantity: 1 Allowance Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Comp #: 1113 Metal Surfaces - Repaint Approx Quantity: 1 GSF Useful Life:

Remaining Life:

Lower Estimate: Higher Estimate:

Location: Common area landscaping
Funded?: No. Handle replenishment out of the Operating budget. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: Although typically funded as an ongoing maintenance item, this component may be used to set aside funds for more significant expenses, such as large-scale plantings, resodding lawn areas, and replenishing bark/mulch. Adjust as conditions and actual expense patterns dictate in future Reserve Study updates.

Cost Source:

Location:

Funded?: No. The project cost estimate is below a minimum threshold. No Reserve funding allocated.

History:

Comments: Plan to repaint at the interval below to inhibit corrosion, prevent or limit costly repairs, and maximize design life.

Cost Source:

Association Reserves, #58592-0 54 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 704 Intercom - Replace Approx Quantity: 3 Intercom Useful Life:
12 years
Remaining Life:
5 years
Lower Estimate: $ 17,600 Higher Estimate: $ 21,500
Comp #: 803 Water Heaters - Replace Approx Quantity: 3 Water Heaters Useful Life:
12 years
Remaining Life:
6 years
Lower Estimate: $ 24,300 Higher Estimate: $ 29,700
Mechanical & Systems
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Clean and wipe down regularly with an appropriate cleaner. Handle any minor repairs as an operating expense. We recommend regular service and maintenance by a licensed professional to help ensure the intercom system continues to function correctly. We anticipate the need for replacement at the interval below.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location:

Funded?: Yes.

History: Replaced in ~2021
Comments: (6) Rheem 100 gallon, 199.9k BTU water heaters, all installed in ~2021; M/N: GNU100-200, S/N: A092120814, Mfg.

Date: 3/2021. It is best to plan for replacement within the typical life expectancy of ten to fifteen years. We recommend regular inspections by a licensed professional to ensure the water heater is fully functional and aging correctly. Flush the tank and inspect the pressure relief valve each year. If not already done, install earthquake strapping and a drain pan for added protection.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 55 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1001 Fire Backflow Preventer - Replace Approx Quantity: 1 Device Useful Life:
30 years
Remaining Life:
3 years
Lower Estimate: $ 13,500 Higher Estimate: $ 16,500
Location: Common area
Funded?: Yes.

History: Installed in ~2000
Comments: No active leaks or other indications of failure. We recommend regular testing and inspection by a licensed backflow professional to ensure the device is fully functional and aging correctly.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 56 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1811 Plumbing - Inspect/Repair Approx Quantity: 1 Allowance Useful Life:
5 years
Remaining Life:
0 years
Lower Estimate: $ 6,300 Higher Estimate: $ 7,700
Location: Throughout property
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Analysis of the plumbing systems is beyond the scope of our services. As the property continues to age, we highly recommend that the client engage a qualified firm to evaluate the plumbing systems, which are classified as a major component under Civil Code Section 5550, as amended by SB900. This may include forensic wall openings and testing sections of piping.

Manufacturing defects occasionally become apparent, and specific site conditions (e.g., galvanic corrosion, dissimilar metals in contact with piping, chemical reactions) can contribute to the premature deterioration of plumbing systems. Patterns of significant repair expenses, leaks, poor flow, and sediments in the lines will accelerate the need for replacement.

The client should seek a detailed analysis to identify hidden conditions, project the remaining useful life of the system, and make recommendations for any necessary repairs, maintenance, and other necessary actions. Before such an evaluation, there is no predictable basis for large-scale plumbing repair or replacement expenses.

The cost projected below is a budget allowance for an inspection and minor repairs, including SB900-related expenses. Adjust the funding and frequency of this component based on further analysis by a subject matter expert and as future conditions dictate.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 57 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

Comp #: 1819 Fire Alarm System - Replace Approx Quantity: 1 System Useful Life:
20 years
Remaining Life:
0 years
Lower Estimate: $ 10,800 Higher Estimate: $ 13,200
Comp #: 1844 Electrical System - Inspect/Repair Approx Quantity: 1 Allowance Useful Life:
15 years
Remaining Life:
0 years
Lower Estimate: $ 6,300 Higher Estimate: $ 7,700
Location: Main panel is located in the lobby
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Fire panels and systems may last an extended period, barring unforeseen electrical incidents. However, design obsolescence, parts availability, technological advances, and code changes dictate the need to plan for periodic replacement. A wide range of panels and features is available, and this component provides an allowance for replacement. We recommend regular testing and inspection by a licensed professional to ensure all fire systems are fully functional and aging correctly.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Location: Throughout property
Funded?: Yes.

History:

Comments: Assessing the electrical system is beyond the scope of our services. As the property continues to age, we highly recommend that the client engage a qualified firm to evaluate the electrical system, which is classified as a major component under Civil Code Section 5550, as amended by SB900.

The client should seek a detailed analysis to identify hidden conditions, project the remaining useful life of the system, and make recommendations for any necessary repairs, maintenance, and other necessary actions. Before such an evaluation, there is no predictable basis for large-scale electrical system repair or replacement expenses.

The cost projected below is a budget allowance for an inspection and minor repairs, including SB900-related expenses. Adjust the funding and frequency of this component based on further analysis by a subject matter expert and as future conditions dictate.

Cost Source: ARSF Cost Database
Association Reserves, #58592-0 58 of 58 1/27/2026
ATTACHMENT 7

February 27, 2026
Via Email
Brisbane Housing Authority
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
Attn: Ms. Julia Ayres
Re: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brisbane Loans for Visitacion Garden - Conditional Letter to RFP
Dear Ms. Ayres:

As we explained with our correspondence on June 19, 2025, we are supportive of the City’s and Authority’s efforts to reposition the Project with a new long-term lessee or operator. With a prospective new lessee working towards City Council approval on April, 2026, we want to reiterate our support of the transfer of the property to the new lessee and any agreement to alter the terms of the lease are conditioned upon the City's agreement that, regardless of the outcome of the RFP, the Authority and City will:
(a) forgive existing Project loans and interest that consist of (i) a loan made by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brisbane (Agency) to BRDIGE Housing Corporation (BRIDGE) in the original principal amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) from the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (Agency Loan), and (ii) a loan made by the Agency to BRIDGE in the original principal amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) from the proceeds of bonds issued by the Agency deposited in the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (Bond Proceeds Loan); (b) release BRIDGE, and cause any new lessee or operator to release Brisbane Senior Housing, Inc., as current lessee, from ongoing liabilities associated with the Project; (c) work with us to seek to cause the County of San Mateo’s (County) Project loan to be forgiven concurrently with the Authority’s loan; (d) terminate the lease as soon as practicable in light of the RFP responses.

Docusign Envelope ID: 75F74118-E22F-489A-8C08-977736DA54CB

We look forward to our collective efforts relating to this Project. Please let us know of next steps and we look forward to a successful Council meeting.

Sincerely,
Sierra Atilano, Chief Real Estate Officer
Authorized Representative of Brisbane Senior Housing, Inc.

Enclosure
[Signatures of City and Authority on the Following Page] Docusign Envelope ID: 75F74118-E22F-489A-8C08-977736DA54CB

The City of Brisbane and Brisbane Housing Authority hereby agree to forgive the Agency Loan and the Bond Proceeds Loan effective as of the expiration or earlier termination of that certain Ground Lease dated as of January 26, 1998, amended in November 4, 1998, and April 10, 2000, and to comply with the other conditions described in (b) through (d).

CITY OF BRISBANE,
a municipal corporation
By: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________

BRISBANE HOUSING AUTHORITY,
a public body, corporate and politic
By: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 75F74118-E22F-489A-8C08-977736DA54CB

1 BRISBANE HOUSING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx
WHEREAS, the Brisbane Housing Authority (“Authority”) owns real property at 2-8 Visitacion Avenue, Brisbane, California, which property has been developed with 14 affordable rental units for seniors (Visitacion Garden) and a community room used as the City’s senior center; and WHEREAS, in 1998, the property, then owned by the (now former) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brisbane (“RDA”), was leased to and developed by the BRIDGE Housing Corporation (“BRIDGE”),a non-profit housing developer whose purpose is to provide affordable housing for low income persons, which lease runs through January 2028; and WHEREAS, the RDA also made two loans to BRIDGE totaling $2.5 million to offset predevelopment and construction costs for the project; and WHEREAS, in 2000, with the approval of the RDA, BRIDGE assigned its interest in the lease to Brisbane Senior Housing, Inc., (“BSH”), a non-profit organization affiliated with and managed by BRIDGE and since 2000, BSH has owned the project and, through a variety of management agreements with third parties, operated and managed the 14 rental units; and WHEREAS, also in 2000, BRIDGE, with the approval of the RDA, assigned its interest in the two RDA loans to BSH; and
WHEREAS, after discussions and agreement between the Authority, the City, BRIDGE and BSH, the Authority sent out a Request for Proposals for a new organization to lease and/or manage the property/project and if the Authority approved a proposal by such organization, the Authority would terminate early its Ground Lease with BSH; and
WHEREAS, the Authority received a proposal from the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART), a joint powers authority, the members of which are the cities in San Mateo County (including Brisbane) and San Mateo County, and its assignee HEART-SV, a separate joint powers authority whose members are HEART and San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, under the HEART-SV proposal, HEART-SV would acquire the Visitacion Garden project and enter into a new 55-year ground ease with the Authority for the project; and WHEREAS, under the HEART-SV proposal, HEART-SV would assume $3,062,564 of the existing, outstanding debt on the property and obtain an additional loan in the amount of $390,250 from the Authority ‘s Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund to fund needed capital improvements at the project; and
WHEREAS, if the HEART proposal is approved, the existing Ground Lease with BSH and related documents would need to be terminated; and
ATTACHMENT 9

2 WHEREAS, the Housing Authority at its meeting on May 21, 2026 reviewed the HEART-SV proposal, the documents that have been prepared to implement such proposal, and the documents prepared to terminate the existing arrangement with BRIDGE/BSH; and WHEREAS, because the HEART-SV proposal does not result in HEART-SV assuming all the existing debt on the property from the loans to BSH, and even though BSH has no legal obligation to repay the outstanding balance of the loans because they are non-recourse loan, BSH has nevertheless requested the Authority to forgive any of its debt that is not assumed by HEART-SV; and WHEREAS, the Authority finds that forgiving the outstanding debt on the property serves a public purpose because the HEART-SV proposal does not include assuming all of that debt and without the HEART-SV proposal, there may not be any organization to operate the project when the BSH ground lease terminates in January 2028, thereby resulting in the loss of a 14 affordable rental units for seniors.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BRISBANE HOUSING AUTHORITY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. As to and with HEART-SV, (a) approves (i) the Ground Lease, (ii) a Memorandum of Ground Lease, (iii) the Regulatory Agreement, (iv) the Loan Agreement, all in substantially the same form as those documents are attached to this Resolution, and (v) any other related documents necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution, and, (b) authorizes the Executive Director to sign such documents when the Authority’s General Counsel has approved the final form of all documents.

Section 2. As to the BRIDGE Housing Corporation and Brisbane Senior Housing, Inc., (a) approves the Termination of (i) the Ground Lease and its Assignment, (ii) the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and (iii) the Declaration of Restrictions, (b) authorizes the Executive Director to accept a Quit Claim Deed from BRIDGE and Brisbane Senior Housing, the form of which is attached to this Resolution, (c) when the Authority’s General Counsel has approved the final form of all documents, authorizes the Executive Director to sign the Termination documents, the reconveyances of the deeds of trust in which the BRIDGE Housing Corporation is the trustor, and any other related documents necessary to carry out the full and complete termination of the interests of the BRIDGE Housing Corporation and Brisbane Senior Housing, Inc. in the Visitacion Garden Senior Apartment project and (d) forgives the debt of the two loans made by the BRIDGE Housing Corporation, as assigned to Brisbane Senior Housing, Inc., to the extent such debt has not been assumed by HEART-SV, on grounds that there is no legal obligation for that debt to be repaid to the Authority and to forgive that debt serves a public purpose as set forth in this Resolution.

Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

ATTACHMENT 9

3 This Resolution was adopted at a Special Meeting of the Brisbane Housing Authority on May 21, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES;
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: Board Member Lentz
__________________________
Ingrid Padilla, Board Secretary
Approved as to form:
____________________________
Samantha Zutler, General Counsel
ATTACHMENT 9

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 21, 2026
From: Adrienne Etherton, Sustainability Manager, Bob Sage Subject: Presentation on Public Tree Inventory and Consider Adoption of Citywide Canopy Goal
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council accept the Public Tree Inventory and Management Plan, receive a presentation of the Hubsite, and adopt a citywide tree canopy goal.

Background
The Open Space and Ecology Committee (OSEC) has long expressed concerns about the loss of trees—particularly larger trees in central Brisbane—and requested that the City evaluate ways to understand and address this trend in alignment with environmental and climate goals. The City’s last inventory of street trees occurred in 2007.

In 2023, the City engaged PlanIT Geo to conduct a study on both the health of individual public trees and the broader tree canopy across the entire city, including public and private lands.

Their scope included:
• Inventory of up to 5,000 trees on City-owned property by certified arborists • Analysis of tree canopy change from 2010 to 2022 using satellite imagery • Tools to support consideration of future canopy growth scenarios The field inventory took place in spring 2024, with data delivered in late May. Upon review, Public Works, with a new GIS Manager position, determined that developing an in-house platform would be preferable to paying ongoing subscription costs to PlanIT Geo. Between late 2024 and early 2025, the nearly 5,000 inventoried trees and their 43 associated attributes were incorporated into the ‘Brisbane Tree Inventory’ Hub Site, available at brisbaneca.org/trees, by the GIS Manager, with support from Sustainability, Buildings and Grounds, as well as Public Works and ultimately city leadership.

Concurrently, Sustainability staff worked with OSEC’s Tree Subcommittee to evaluate citywide canopy change and explore future scenarios using PlanIT Geo’s tools. OSEC considered three draft 2040 canopy scenarios in March 2025 and, in April 2025, received a presentation on the Public Tree Inventory and Management Plan and adopted the recommended 2040 canopy goal.

Discussion
Key findings from the Tree Inventory are summarized in the attached Executive Summary, and

the full dataset is publicly accessible via the interactive ‘Brisbane Tree Inventory’ Hub Site.

Using the PlanIT Geo dataset, the Public Works team developed a Tree Management Plan to address maintenance needs identified by the arborists. Fortunately, 90% of trees were in Excellent, Good, or Fair condition. However, a significant amount of maintenance work was identified by PlanIT Geo arborists, using a complicated and overlapping set of attributes including Tree Work, Maintenance Priority, Risk Rating, Consequences of Failure, Likelihood of Failure, and Condition. To ensure this information could be applied efficiently and communicated clearly, staff organized the results into three practical Management Phases that highlight the most important maintenance needs while appropriately prioritizing public safety.

OSEC recommended completing the Management Plan over three years. Staff additionally recommend following industry standards by completing a public tree inventory every 5–7 years.

The attached Canopy Goal Recommendation details canopy growth from 9% in 2010 to 13% in 2022, with substantial variation across census blocks. OSEC recommends a goal of increasing canopy coverage by an additional 10% by 2040—resulting in 23% canopy cover—with distribution by general land use type. OSEC has begun exploring programmatic pathways to support achieving this goal, and staff anticipate bringing forward future plans and budget requests accordingly.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with accepting this report. Budget requests to initiate the Management Plan were included in the 2025/26 and 2026/27 budgets, with $170,000 allocated in each fiscal year to support completing the plan within three years. Staff expect to request funding for completion of the Management Plan in FY 27/28 and to conduct the next public tree inventory around 2030. Additional funding requests to support tree replacements and canopy growth on public and private properties are anticipated.

Attachments

1. Tree Inventory Executive Summary

2. Canopy Goal Recommendation
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
05/14/2026

1 City of Brisbane 2024 Tree Inventory
The City of Brisbane completed an inventory of City owned trees in the spring of 2024. The inventory of approximately 5000 trees and accompanying data was collected by PlanIT Geo. In addition, a separate citywide review of the tree canopy was performed by PlanIT Geo comparing satellite data from 2010 and 2022 of tree cover across the jurisdiction’s boundaries.

PlanIT Geo delivered the inventory data as a GIS shapefile, as well as summary charts and statistics. Brisbane Public Works staff reviewed the data and presents it here in this Executive Summary as well as the Brisbane Tree HubSite which provides GIS maps, data and searchable content.

Quick Stats
Total Trees
Counted
Unique Species Average Diameter
at Breast Height
(DBH) (inches)
Largest Diameter
at Breast Height
(DBH) (inches)
Eco Benefits
For details of the Eco Benefits, which are calculated by iTree, see planitgeo.com/library/the-new-itree-benefits-api-is-here/ 4720 180 12.02 96
Total Eco-Benefits
Runoff Avoided: 1331.53 (ft³)
Interception: 19,827.89 (ft³)
Pollutants Removed: 5923.94 (lbs)
Carbon Storage: 9,607,535.00 (lbs)
CO₂ Storage: 35,227,636.00 (lbs)
CO₂ Sequestered: 903,467.50 (lbs)

2 Tree Diversity
The Tree Diversity charts show the top five most common tree species, genera, and families within the inventory. The red horizontal lines demonstrate the 10-20-30 rule, which suggests an urban tree population should include no more than 10% of any one species, 20% of any one genus, or 30% of any family. Tree managers, researchers, and practitioners use these parameters first recommended by Santamour in 1990 as an industry standard to measure a tree population's resiliency to harmful tree pests and diseases and other factors. Consider establishing these thresholds on a communitywide scale and/or at smaller-scales such as by neighborhood, street corridor, block, or project.

Santamour, F.S., 1990. Trees for urban planting: diversity, uniformity and common sense. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance.

Top 5 Species

3 Top 5 Genera
Top 5 Families
The Tree Diversity Dashboard on the Brisbane Tree HubSite includes charts showing the Top 20 Species and Top 20 Genus, and the counts of those trees in the inventory, including the ability to filter the map to identify the locations of those trees. For instance, there are 959 Eucalyptus (genus) on city-owned properties and rights of way within Brisbane:

4

5 Tree Size Distribution
This chart displays the May 2024 recorded diameter (diameter at breast height or DBH, measured

4.5-feet above natural grade) values along with DBH goals (as defined by Richards et al. in 1983 and 1993). This information is often used to identify a tree population's structure, distribution of tree canopy cover and associated benefits, current maintenance needs, projecting potential surges in maintenance and removal needs, among other considerations in sustainably managing trees in communities. A distribution of tree size classes as indicated by the "Goal" uniformly distributes tree benefits and maintenance needs. Smaller, younger trees compared to large diameter trees aim to compensate for the loss of tree canopy cover and associated benefits that occur when large trees reach their full potential, mature, and begin to decline, requiring eventual removal (in most cases).

Richards, N. A. 1983. “Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population.” Urban Ecology 7(2):159–171.

Richards, N.A. 1993. Reasonable guidelines for street tree diversity. Journal of Arboriculture 19:344–349.

The Tree Diversity Dashboard on the Brisbane Tree HubSite includes a pie chart of the Brisbane tree size data, including the ability to filter the map to identify the locations of trees of that size.

35.28% 27.92%

16.54%

6.76% 4.46%

9.03%

6 Tree Health
A key goal of inventorying city-owned trees is to understand the health of our trees and identify maintenance needs. To that end, two dashboards have been created: a Tree Health Dashboard, and a Maintenance and Risk Dashboard which identifies specific maintenance needs. Public Works Buildings and Grounds staff have reviewed and, as of mid-January 2025, have removed at least 8 trees, trimmed 17 and evaluated approximately 50 more. Where trees are dead but not posing a risk to the public, they have been left in place for ecologic and economic reasons.

Fortunately, 90% of inventoried public trees are in Excellent, Good or Fair Condition.

Unfortunately, that leaves 10% of trees in Poor Condition or Dead. Of the 164 trees PlanIT Geo identified as “Dead”, the data indicates that 53 or approximately 1/3 are in fact Stumps. The Top Ten Species of Dead Trees in the inventory are:

Both the charts shown on this page are included in the publicly accessible Tree Health Dashboard, including the ability to click on a condition or species and see those tree locations in the map.

7 PlanIT Geo’s dataset includes additional data intended to support the City’s maintenance of its trees, such as Tree Work, Risk Ratings, Conflicts with Wires, Trees observed with Vines, and more.

TREE WORK COUNT*
CrownCleaning 752
Prune-Clearance 452
Prune-Structural 283
Prune-Utility 267
RemoveHardware 207
Remove 198
Insects 43
Disease 26
Monitor 24
Remove-Hanger 19
Reduce 16
Prune-Restoration 13
Thin 13
Other 12
Remove-Girdling Root 7
Raise 4
Amend Mulch 1
*Note that the same tree could be counted with multiple different Tree Work needs, but 3,147 trees had no work specified.

MAINTENANCE

PRIORITY COUNT PERCENTAGE
Low 4,546 96.3%
Medium 155 3.3%
High 19 0.4%

RISK RATING COUNT PERCENTAGE
None Specified 2,909 57.8%
Low 2,120 42.1%
Moderate 3 0.1%
High 1 0.0%
Extreme 0 0.0%
Maintenance Priorities and Risk Ratings were
evaluated separately by PlanIT Geo arborists,
and there are not clearly-defined overlaps
between the categories. See the final page of
this Executive Summary for definitions.

8 Tree and Potential Planting Site Locations
The surrounding land use of inventoried public trees was identified by PlanIT Geo, however the land use does not necessarily match the City’s General Plan land use designations. The inventories also included a tree’s growing space.

Land Use of City Trees City Trees Growing Spaces
PlanIT Geo further identified 240 Potential Planting Sites, including their surrounding land use (again distinct from the City’s designations) and the tree’s growing space.

Potential Planting Sites Land Use Potential Planting Sites Growing Space These charts are available in the City Trees and Potential Planting Sites Dashboard on the Brisbane Tree HubSite, including the ability to filter the map by any given slice of the pie.

The Potential Planting Sites will need to be investigated for viability and those deemed promising could be considered for a citywide planting effort.

9 Public Tree Management Plan
While the majority of the City’s public trees are in good shape, there are maintenance needs that must be addressed to maintain public safety and the health of these important city assets. Public Works staff used the data provided by PlanIT Geo to develop and prioritize a management plan, which is outlined here and in the City Trees Management Planning App on the Tree HubSite.

Public Works staff recommend the Management Plan be considered for completion within 5 years.

Below are the estimated costs to complete the program.

Phase 1 $129,200
Phase 2 $184,850
Phase 3 $195,700
Total cost for all phases $509,750
These budget estimates do not include the cost to replant trees that are removed and currently vacant street tree locations. Planting these ~50 trees would require an additional $50,000- $100,000. These sites are in addition to the 240 potential planting sites identified by PlanIT Geo. The City has a “Tree Plant Fund” collected from private property owners who are unable to plant a replacement tree on their property after a permitted removal which could be used to offset planting expenses. The fund balance is approximately $14,200 which would plant around 10 trees, depending on site prep needed and other factors. Currently, $340,000 is budgeted.

Phase 1:

Total trees included in phase: 53
Primary work categories:
• 23 removals
• 23 crown cleaning
• 7 pruning
Estimated cost for phase: $129,200

10 Phase 2:

Total trees included in phase: 102
Primary work categories:
• 37 crown cleaning
• 34 removals
• 27 pruning
Estimated cost for phase: $184,850
Phase 3:

Total trees included in phase: 108
Primary work categories:
• 62 crown cleaning
• 37 pruning
• 9 removals
Estimated cost for phase: $195,700

11 Wires:

Approximately 267 public trees were
identified as “present and conflicting with
utility wires.” Public Works plans to have a
summer intern confirm which are PG&E
lines, as opposed to communications
lines, and share the resulting dataset with
PG&E to address accordingly. Some
conflicts may also be addressed by
pruning efforts captured in Phases 1-3.

Vines:

Approximately 318 public trees were
identified with vines, which can negatively
impact tree health. Removing, or cutting
off at the ground to result in vines
naturally dying off, is a straightforward
task. The Open Space and Ecology
Committee has previously called for
volunteer events or efforts to address
vines; staff recommends taking this
approach and integrating the program into
the Brisbane Cares Volunteer Initiative
with a Vine Volunteer Management App
in the Tree HubSite to facilitate this work,
excluding areas within the San Bruno
Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan
Boundary (shown in red) where a permit
and biologist supervision is required.

12 Work in Progress and Next Steps
 City Council accepts this report and approves the recommended City Tree Management Plan and Citywide Canopy 2040 Goal.
 Staff will utilize funds allocated by the City Council in FY26 and FY27 to implement the City Tree Management Plan and will request funds to complete the Management Plan in FY28.  Staff will have an intern confirm conflicts with utility wires and share the resulting data and map with PG&E.
 Staff and OSEC will validate Potential Planting Sites.  Staff will work with OSEC and the Brisbane Cares initiative to implement volunteer efforts to address vines on trees.
 Staff and OSEC will continue to use this report and Tree HubSite to recommend policies, incentives, or city-led tree planting efforts to protect and expand Brisbane’s urban forest in support of the management plan and canopy goal adopted by Council.  Staff will track progress in the Tree HubSite as the Management Plan is implemented and report to Council annually
 Staff recommends evaluating the health of trees every 5-7 years, at minimum, and will make budgetary requests accordingly to support regular updates to this plan.

13 Definitions
https://dpwbrisbane.maps.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/d60bbf81b53e436987e110e8c6 5e96d4/data
CONDITION Overall condition of the tree
Excellent Trees in this category show no structural or biotic defects. They represent a tree that is 100% healthy
Good Trees in this category show minor structural or biotic defects and represent a tree that is below 100% but above 80% healthy
Fair Trees in this category show structural or biotic defects and represent a tree that is below 80% but above 50% healthy
Poor Trees in this category show significant structural or biotic defects and represent a tree that is below 50% healthy often with serious decline Dead Trees in this category are dead and have no live growth on them

MAINTENANCE

PRIORITY
A scale to categorize tree maintenance tasks based on the urgency and potential risk involved.

High Tree work that must be addressed immediately to eliminate imminent danger to people or property
Medium Tree work necessary to address potential safety hazards identified during a routine inspection
Low Routine maintenance tasks and/or trees that do not require more immediate attention
RISK RATING Risk Rating is automatically calculated based on the values present in the Likelihood and Consequences of Failures fields.

Low Consequences are negligible and likelihood is unlikely, or consequences are minor and likelihood is somewhat likely
Moderate Consequences are minor and likelihood is very likely or likely, or likelihood is somewhat likely and consequences are significant or severe High Consequences are significant and likelihood is very high or likely, or consequences are severe and likelihood is likely
Extreme Failure is imminent with a high likelihood of impacting the target, and the consequences of the failure are severe

1 Citywide Tree Canopy
PlanIT Geo’s Canopy services utilize satellite data to approximate tree cover and show the differences between 2010 and 2022. The data is available at pg-cloud.com/BrisbaneCA/ until August 2025, after which the City must renew the license at the current cost of $5,750/year. 2010 Tree Canopy
The average tree canopy across the jurisdiction in 2010 was 9%.

Tree canopy percentages by census block were incorporated into the Brisbane Tree HubSite and range from 0 (Lagoon) or 2% (Baylands) to 70% in an area of central Brisbane’s upper streets.

2 2022 Tree Canopy
The average tree canopy across the jurisdiction in 2022 was 13%.

Again the tree canopy percentages by census block, available in both PlanIT Geo and the Brisbane Tree HubSite, range from 0 (Lagoon) or 2% (Baylands) to 60% in the uppermost reaches of Central Brisbane.

3 2010-22 Tree Canopy Change
Overall, Brisbane’s tree canopy grew 3% from 2010 to 2022.

However, the average masks significant differences by geographic area. Some census blocks saw their canopy increase up to 20% while other areas saw a loss of up to 13% tree coverage.

4 Canopy Loss
Layering the two years of satellite imagery in PlanIT Geo can show areas with tree growth or loss. In this first image, 2022 (green) is layered over the 2010 data (red). Where red is visible trees have been lost.

5 Canopy Gain
Conversely, in the following image 2010 (red) is layered over 2022 (green). Here the visible green areas are where tree canopy has increased.

6 Planning and Growth
PlanIT Geo’s Canopy data also incorporates social and economic data, allowing for tree planting efforts that prioritize planting in areas with low existing tree canopy, or in areas with low-income or vulnerable populations.

The following screenshot shows the available prioritization criteria (left side) and results with all criteria equally weighted to medium priority.

PlanIT Geo’s Grow tool is designed to help evaluate potential urban tree canopy goals and the number of trees to reach the goal. With just three inputs - canopy %, mortality rate of newly planted trees, and average tree size at maturity - the tool outputs how many trees are needed, what the overall impact is on canopy cover, and the impact on ecosystem service benefits from your urban forest.

7 2040 Canopy Goal Recommendation
As shown in the map below, areas with existing canopy above 30%, as well as the Lagoon, waterfront, Quarry and Callippe Hill regions were left unaltered (lightest yellow). Other areas of central Brisbane were modeled with a 30% canopy, commercial areas with a 20% canopy, and the Baylands with a 25% canopy. The result is a 23% citywide canopy, or 10% increase over 2022 levels, recommended by 2040.

Reaching this goal would require planting 13,033 trees with an average tree crown diameter of 30 feet and a mortality rate of 5%. Of those trees, 8,813 are in the Baylands, leaving 4,220 trees to be planted across public and private (residential and commercial) sites throughout the rest of the city over 15 years, or around 280 trees per year. The table on page 9 includes scenario details for each census block.

In addition, the tool models Ecosystem Benefits of such an increase in tree canopy, with the results shown below for the scenario described.

8

9 Area Name or ID Existing
Canopy (%)
Modeled
Canopy (%)
Net Change
Canopy (%)
No. Trees to
Reach Goal
Avg Tree
Size (ft.)
Mortality
Rate (%)
Annual Added EcoBenefits ($)
060816001001008 12 30 18 31 30 5 78
060816001004002 10 30 20 62 30 5 158
060816001001003 18 30 12 24 30 5 61
060816001004005 20 30 10 78 30 5 198
060816001004006 16 30 14 19 30 5 48
060816001002004 4 25 21 304 30 5 774
060816001004011 16 30 14 36 30 5 92
060816001005006 3 30 27 35 30 5 88
060816001005003 8 30 22 41 30 5 106
060816001001006 20 30 10 16 30 5 41
060816001005005 12 30 18 96 30 5 244
060816001001005 29 30 1 12 30 5 30
060816001001007 16 30 14 29 30 5 75
060816001001000 13 30 17 23 30 5 59
060816001002006 4 20 16 54 30 5 138
060816001002003 2 25 23 5,947 30 5 15,150
060816001002015 20 20 0 0 30 5 0
060816023002003 29 20 -9 -2 30 5 -5
060816001002016 10 20 10 354 30 5 902
060816001005001 1 30 29 37 30 5 93
060816001002030 16 20 4 122 30 5 311
060816001002025 16 20 4 35 30 5 89
060816001004004 14 30 16 67 30 5 171
060816001001009 11 30 19 38 30 5 96
060816001002014 1 20 19 57 30 5 145
060816001002017 19 20 1 21 30 5 52
060816001001001 8 30 22 26 30 5 65
060816001005004 22 30 8 260 30 5 664
060816001002019 11 20 9 347 30 5 885
060816001004000 10 30 20 29 30 5 75
060816001001015 28 30 2 3 30 5 7
060816001002007 18 20 2 16 30 5 42
060816001001011 25 30 5 14 30 5 36
060816001002020 20 20 0 1 30 5 3
060816001004003 11 30 19 75 30 5 192
060816001001002 9 30 21 45 30 5 115
060816001002012 11 20 9 197 30 5 502
060816001002029 11 20 9 52 30 5 131
060816001002008 4 20 16 422 30 5 1,074
060816001004001 10 30 20 44 30 5 111
060816001005007 16 30 14 22 30 5 57
060816001002005 6 25 19 2,562 30 5 6,526
060816001002027 9 20 11 135 30 5 343
060816001002026 6 20 14 807 30 5 2,056
060816001004007 24 30 6 17 30 5 44
060816001001004 19 30 11 23 30 5 57
060816001002024 15 30 15 386 30 5 985
060816001005002 10 30 20 14 30 5 35

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: May 21, 2026
From: Carolina Yuen, Finance Director
Subject: Master Fee Study Results and Preliminary Master Fee Schedule
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council accept the Master Fee Study results and provide direction to staff regarding next steps to prepare Master Fee Schedule for Public Hearing.

Background
During the review of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25, Council directed staff to conduct a Master Fee Study to review the existing Master Fee Schedule and determine subsidy ratios, service costs, market trends, compliance and if we’re optimizing the methods available to assess fees for services offered by the City. Given that at the time, budgeted operating expenses exceeded the City’s budgeted revenues, the City wanted to review its revenue streams to determine if there are additional opportunities for growth or restructuring. The last study was conducted in 2002.

Staff engaged Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix) to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study (Master Fee Study) and met with the Subcommittee on December 16, 2025, to review the results and the updated Master Fee Schedule recommended by staff. The Subcommittee members requested more information on the newer and consolidated rates, and reasons behind recommendations and met again on March 2, 2026. Staff was directed to bring the Master Fee Study results to Council for a general review.

Discussion
The general purpose of the study was to document the direct and indirect costs associated with fee-based city services. The study would also identify services currently provided for, which fees could be assessed and understand how services and fees compare within the region. The basic steps of the study and project included:

1. Review existing fees and services

2. Establish time estimates and service level assumptions

3. Calculate the fully burdened hourly rates

4. Conduct jurisdictional comparison

5. Develop fee recommendations and Master Fee Schedule
After several meetings with staff and analysis of the data, Matrix completed its study and assisted City Staff with the preparation of the proposed Master Fee Schedule to present to City Council and stakeholders. Highest fees to match costs were not always the same rates recommended by staff. In some cases, such as Parks and Recreation and the Marina, competitive market fees also were considered. Some fees have increased to recognize the costs revealed behind the services. However, the actual cost is not always the recommended fee.

Each department has provided reasoning for each recommendation.

The Study resulted in a few changes or offered feedback to the Master Fee Schedule, with the following sample:
• There were several areas where it was determined that departments could charge more in relation to the cost of service.
• Although many of the current fees are reflected as much less than the cost to provide the service, some departments have elected not to charge enough to cover the full cost, primarily due to competitive pricing to neighboring jurisdictions. • The proposed Master Fee Schedule has been reorganized for clarity and ease of reference.
• There were several fees that were higher than service cost or higher than regulation and needed to be reduced.
• The City should continue to use CPI for annual adjustment determinations.

Next Steps
Staff request the Council accept the Master Fee Study and review the proposed Master Fee Schedule to determine the need for additional steps, additional information or other preparation in advance of presenting for a Public Hearing. A public hearing is required as part of the process of implementing the fees. Staff would like the City Council and stakeholders to have enough time to thoroughly review and properly implement.

Fiscal Impact
None at this time by accepting this Master Fee Study.

Attachments

1. FY26 Brisbane Master Fee Study Report 120925 for 052126

2. Revised Brisbane Master Fee Schedule 031526

City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
05/16/2026

BRISBANE, CA

COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE

STUDY REPORT
DECEMBER 2025
Attachment 1

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 4
USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY 7
RESULTS OVERVIEW 9
BUILDING 10
FINANCE 17
FIRE 19
MARINA 24
PARKS AND RECREATION 25
PLANNING 28
POLICE 34
PUBLIC WORKS 36
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SURCHARGES 40
COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS 43
APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 1
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Comprehensive User Fee study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Brisbane, California.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of Brisbane has not conducted a formal fee analysis since 2002, which is approximately 13 years ago. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing a variety of city services. The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following areas: Building, Finance, Fire, Marina, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police, and Public Works. The results of this study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services.

GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed by Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a Department or Program. Once time spent for a fee activity is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City:

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF COST COMPONENTS
Cost Component Description
Direct Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budgeted salaries, benefits, and allowable expenditures.

Indirect Division, departmental, clerical, and Citywide support.

Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing a service, regardless of whether a fee for that service is charged. The work accomplished by Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service involved the following steps:
• Department / Program Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department/program staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items or for addition of new fee items.
• Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit/service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2025-26 were entered into Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model.
• Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was established.

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2
• Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has reviewed and approved these documented results.

A more detailed description of user fee methodology and legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
When comparing fee-related revenue with the calculated total annual cost, the City is under-recovering its development fee-related costs by approximately $292,000 or recovering 70% of its costs. The following table shows the revenue collected, the total annual cost, the resulting difference, and the resulting cost recovery percentage by major fee-related division.

TABLE 2: ANNUAL COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS
Division Fee-Related Revenue Fee-Related Cost Difference Cost Recovery % Building $667,669 $876,014 ($208,346) 76%
Planning $25,119 $108,295 ($83,176) 23%
Total $692,788 $984,309 ($291,522) 70%
The most significant deficit is in relation to the Building Permit Fees, specifically permit and plan check fees for alterations and repairs. Right-sizing these fees will help the City ensure that it is appropriately capturing its costs.

For all other departments, detailed information was not available to provide the annual cost recovery impacts.

The differences highlight the disparity between current fees charged and the actual cost of providing services. As such, the City should closely evaluate and modify fees where appropriate to help bridge the cost-recovery gap.

The detailed documentation of this study will show an over-collection for some fees (on a per-unit basis) and an undercharge for most others. The results of this analysis will provide the Department and the City with guidance on how to right-size their fees to ensure that each service unit is set at an amount that does not exceed the full cost of providing that service. The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among City Councilmembers and City staff and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the City Council should act. The setting of the “rate” or “price” for services, whether at full cost recovery or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the City Council with input from City staff and the community.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal Cost Recovery Policy, including a mechanism for the annual update of fees for service.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3

ADOPT A FORMAL COST RECOVERY POLICY
The Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should adopt formal policies regarding charges and fees which include the jurisdiction’s intention to recover the full cost or partial costs of providing services, sets forth circumstances under which the jurisdiction might set a charge for fee at less than or more than 100% of full cost, and outlines the considerations that might influence the jurisdiction’s pricing decision.

The Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the Council adopt a formalized, individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other revenue sources. The Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice.

ADOPT AN ANNUAL FEE UPDATE / INCREASE MECHANISM
GFOA best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should review, and update charges and fees periodically based on factors such as the impact of inflation, other cost increases, adequacy of cost recovery, use of services, and the competitiveness of current rates to avoid large infrequent fee increases.

The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level estimates and assumptions, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures that have occurred since the City’s previous analysis. It’s recommended the City establish a practice of conducting comprehensive analyses every five to seven years as this practice captures any changes to organizational structure, processes, as well as any new service areas.

In between comprehensive updates, the City should continue to utilize published industry economic factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost calculations established in the Study on an annual basis.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4
This section of the report is intended to provide an overview of the legal rules and regulations that govern what is considered a fee for service, how those fees can be calculated, general principles, philosophies, and general policy considerations for setting fees for service.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A “user fee” is a charge for a service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group.

California has several Government Codes and Propositions that regulate fees for service, with the purpose of ensuring that fees are reasonable and justified. The most prominent and relevant of these include:
• Proposition 26: Passed in 2010, specifically outlined the difference between a fee and a tax and dictates that fees must be directly related to a service and cannot exceed the reasonable cost of that service.
• Government Code § 50076: clarifies that fees for service costs are not special taxes and do not need voter approval.
• Government Code § 65104: gives local governments the authority to charge planning and zoning fees to recover processing costs.

When determining fees for service, it is important to ensure there is a direct benefit – the service is provided directly to the payer, and that it is cost-based, and does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
While Proposition 26 defines what constitutes a user fee, and how those fees can be determined, it also provides a key exception for fees charged for facility or property rentals. This exception outlines that fees for use of government property (e.g., renting public buildings, parks, or event spaces) are voluntary transactions. Therefore, governments can charge market-based rental fees for these services.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities. While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received:

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5
TABLE 3: SERVICES IN RELATION TO BENEFIT RECEIVED
Funding for local government is obtained from myriad revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global community benefit” section tend to be funded primarily through voter-approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fees, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual/group benefit” section of the table are the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.

The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:
❖ Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large. ❖ A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees. In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval.

Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.

GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES
Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax-based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received. "Global" Community Benefit
•Police
•Park Maintenance
•Fire Suppression
"Global" Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit
•Recreation / Community
Services
•Fire Prevention
Individual or Group Benefit
•Building Permits
•Planning and Zoning
Approval
•Engineering Development
Review

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6
Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or City Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit on the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee. Examples include time spent copying and retrieving public documents and/or transportation permits. • Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for changing a water heater in a residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit.
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual. Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the community. Examples include Planning Design Review, historical dedications, and certain types of special events.

The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing services and ensure that the City complies with State law.

SUMMARY OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate” or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than, the full cost amount. The City Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and, at times, fall into a “grey area.” However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee Study, the City Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair, and legal. Overall, city staff has reviewed all fees for service in this analysis and where subsidies were identified, they recommended increases where appropriate to reduce the deficit; and where overrecoveries were identified, reduced the fee to comply with the law.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These components then build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:

The following subsections discuss the two components of the basis of the full cost.

TIME ESTIMATION
Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed these estimates.

The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria:
• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis.
• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a service. • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their experience with other agencies.
• Estimates were not based on time in motion studies, as they are not practical for the scope of services and time frame for this project.
• Estimates match the current or proposed staffing levels to ensure there is no over-allocation of staff resources to fee and non-fee related activities.

The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service on which to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service and meets the requirements of California law.

The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or very large and complex projects, Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons:

TIME ASSUMPTION
(by position)

FULLY BURDENED
HOURLY RATE Total Cost

USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner.
• Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for permits or participating in programs.
• Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.

Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate and itemized within the current fee schedule.

FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATES
The fully burdened hourly rates calculated through this study include the following components:
• Salaries: FY25-26 Budgeted salaries were utilized and consolidated at the positional level. • Benefits: FY25-26 Budgeted benefits were utilized and consolidated at the positional level. • Productive Hours: Based on Brisbane’s current personnel system rules, working or productive hours were calculated. This means taking the starting total working hours and reducing the hours by vacation, sick, holidays, trainings, and administrative leave based on each bargaining unit • Departmental / Divisional Overhead: This captures any internal service charges or operating supply costs such as vehicles, supplies, etc. Additionally, this component includes the cost associated with support from Director, Administrative and Analytical staff that do not directly work on fees. • Citywide Overhead: This captures support provided by the City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance, and Human Resources. The costs are based on the City’s internal Cost Allocation Plan.

Together these components result in the generation of fully burdened hourly rates by position / classification and/or department / division. These rates were multiplied against the time assumptions to calculate the full cost of services noted in this report.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9
The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for City Council and Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for the community and to maintain control over the policy and management of these services.

It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement. In general, a cost-of-service analysis takes a “snapshot in time,” where a fiscal year of financial and operational information is utilized. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates, allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, City Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward.

Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each fee including the following:
• Modifications: discussions regarding any proposed revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees.
• “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable).
• Annualized Results: utilizing volume of activity estimates, annual subsidies, and revenue impacts were projected where workload was available.

The full analytical results were provided to City staff under separate cover from this summary report.

RESULTS OVERVIEW

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10
The Building Division is part of the Community Development Department. The Building Division is responsible for conducting plan review and inspections in order to ensure that all construction in the city is in compliance with the California Building Code. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by the Building Division.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with the Building Division, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating ‘Property Address Service’ and ‘For the Installation of Each New Domestic Water or Sewer Service’, as these services are no longer offered by City staff, covered under other fees, or are now offered by other departments within the City. • New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fees, to capture services already provided but not codified or new services being provided:
o ‘Minimum Plan Check Fee’
o ‘Fire Support’
o Energy Storage System
o ‘Expedited Plan Review’
o ‘Permit Refund (fee)’
o ‘Revision Processing Fee’
o ‘Reinstatement Fee’
o Installation, Alteration Relocation of Each Electrical Service o Standalone plumbing permits for waterline, water piping, water heaters, and gas piping. o Standalone mechanical permits for
• Modified Fees: The following bullet points represent various miscellaneous modifications that were made to the fee schedule:
o ‘Planning Support’ was proposed to shift from a flat rate to a percentage of the building permit to better reflect the services offered.
o ‘Installation, Alteration, Relocation of Each Electrical Service’ fees was proposed to remove the ‘600 Volts or Less’ header and the ‘Over 600 Volts’ fees to better reflect the services offered.

BUILDING

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11
The modifications noted ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the Building Division.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Building Division collects fees for Building Permit Fees, New Structures and Additions, Misc Fees like Plan Check Fees and Reroofing, Solar, Inspections, Electrical Permits, Plumbing Permits, and Mechanical Permits. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 4: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUILDING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Building permit fees - Alterations, repairs, and interior changes to existing structures & plumbing, electrical, or mechanical work
$800-$2,000
Base $35.00 $87.73 ($52.73)
Each Addl. $100 $3.83 $23.60 ($19.77)
$2,001-$25,000
Base $81.00 $263.18 ($182.18)
Each Addl. $1,000 $16.30 $26.19 ($9.89)
$25,001-$50,000
Base $456.00 $741.46 ($285.46)
Each Addl. $1,000 $12.35 $38.31 ($25.97)
$50,001-$100,000
Base $777.00 $1,052.71 ($275.71)
Each Addl. $1,000 $8.00 $26.88 ($18.88)
$100,001-$500,000
Base $1,000.00 $1,675.22 ($675.22)
Each Addl. $1,000 $6.12 $12.25 ($6.13)
$500,001+
Base $3,610.00 $4,686.65 ($1,076.65)
Each Addl. $1,000 $6.12 $6.12 ($0.00)
New Structures and Additions
Assembly buildings, theaters, stadiums, reviewing stands, amusement park structures 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.89 $1.03 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.77 $0.77 $0.00
VB $0.71 $0.73 ($0.02)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.71 $0.85 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.62 $0.70 ($0.08)
VB $0.57 $0.57 $0.00
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.57 $0.83 ($0.26)
IIB to V $0.49 $0.65 ($0.16)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
VB $0.46 $0.54 ($0.08)
Warehouses, gas stations, storage garages, open garages, wholesale/retail stores, churches, office buildings, bars/restaurants, printing plants, police, fire stations, factories, workshops, storage, sales, paint stores, ice plants, power plants, pumping plants, cold storage, creameries 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.89 $1.14 ($0.25)
IIB to V $0.77 $0.80 ($0.03)
VB $0.83 $0.84 ($0.01)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.71 $0.85 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.62 $0.64 ($0.02)
VB $0.67 $0.75 ($0.08)
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.57 $0.83 ($0.26)
IIB to V $0.49 $0.53 ($0.04)
VB $0.53 $0.65 ($0.12)
Education buildings, day care (more than 6 children - less than 6 use "R") 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $1.08 $1.25 ($0.17)
IIB to V $0.95 $0.95 $0.00
VB $0.87 $0.91 ($0.04)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $1.00 $1.15 ($0.15)
IIB to V $0.88 $0.92 ($0.04)
VB $0.80 $0.83 ($0.03)
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.69 $0.83 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.61 $0.66 ($0.05)
VB $0.55 $0.55 $0.00
Includes hazardous materials storage, paint shops, box factories, repair garages 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $1.08 $1.25 ($0.17)
IIB to V $0.95 $0.95 $0.00
VB $0.88 $0.91 ($0.03)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.87 $1.15 ($0.28)
IIB to V $0.76 $0.92 ($0.16)
VB $0.70 $0.83 ($0.13)
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.69 $0.83 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.61 $0.66 ($0.05)
VB $0.56 $0.57 ($0.01)
Private garages/carports, patio covers, greenhouses, water tanks, storage sheds, corrals, barns, towers, fences over 6 feet high
0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
I & II $0.64 $0.74 ($0.10)
IIB to V $0.53 $0.55 ($0.02)
VB $0.42 $0.42 $0.00
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.51 $0.59 ($0.08)
IIB to V $0.42 $0.49 ($0.07)
VB $0.34 $0.40 ($0.06)
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.41 $0.51 ($0.10)
IIB to V $0.34 $0.41 ($0.07)
VB $0.27 $0.33 ($0.06)
Hotels, apartment houses, dwellings, duplexes, lodging houses, motels 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.89 $1.03 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.77 $0.84 ($0.07)
VB $0.74 $0.77 ($0.03)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.71 $0.85 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.62 $0.72 ($0.10)
VB $0.59 $0.59 $0.00
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.57 $0.83 ($0.26)
IIB to V $0.49 $0.65 ($0.16)
VB $0.47 $0.54 ($0.07)
Swimming Pools (Including utilities)
Swimming Pools $0.40 $1.39 ($0.99)
Decks
Decks $0.16 $0.96 ($0.80)
Termite Repair
$1-$250 $80.00 $279.20 ($199.20)
$250-$20,000
Base $83.00 $311.25 ($228.25)
Each Addl. $1,000 $13.45 $15.18 ($1.73)
$20,000+
Base $357.00 $611.10 ($254.10)
Misc Fees
Reroofing Permit $35 $52 ($17)
Minimum Building Permit Fee $35 $160 ($125)
Plan Checking Fees
Minimum Plan Check Fee New $310 N/A
Commercial 60% 70% (10%)
Residential 50% 60% (10%)
Fire Support New 15% N/A
Planning Support Modified 15% N/A

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Checking of plan revisions initiated by applicant (after issuance of building permit) $63 $248 ($185)
Energy code compliance plan review and inspection
(separate from Section 1 and 2 permits) $64 $248 ($184) Pre-development conference $76 $248 ($172)
Technical Plan and Report Review Cost + 10% Cost + 10% N/A Research Service Fee $1.63 $17.00 ($15)
Penalty for Building without a Permit 10x Permit
Fee
10x Permit
Fee N/A
Solar
Residential1
15 kW or Less $265.57 $450 ($184)
More than 15 kW $265.57 $450 ($184)
Each kW above 15 kW $18 $15 $3
Commercial2
50kW or Less $971 $1,000 ($29)
51 kW - 250 kW $971 $1,000 ($29)
Each kW above 50 kW but less than 250 kW $7.00 $7.00 $0 > 250 kW $2,371 $2,400 ($29)
Each kW above 251 kW $5.00 $5.00 ($0)
Energy Storage System
Application Fee New $105 N/A
Storage Unit New $763 N/A
Thermal System - Residential1
10 kWth or Less $450 $450 $0
More than 10 kWth $450 $450 $0
Each kWth above 10 kWth $15 $15 $0
Thermal System - Commercial2
30 kWth or Less $1,000 $1,000 $0
30 kWth - 260 kWth $1,000 $1,000 $0
Each kWth above 30 kWth but less than 260 kWth $7.00 $7.00 $0 More than 260 kWth $2,610 $2,610 $0
Each kWth above 260 kWth $5.00 $5.00 $0
Expedited Plan Review New 1.5x Fee N/A
Engineering Review $461 $601 ($140)
Inspection Fees
Change of Use Inspection $170 $215 ($45)
Inspection outside normal business hours $135 $280 ($145) Requested Inspection - prior to permit issuance $135 $214 ($79) Re-inspection $135 $215 ($80)
CASp Inspection $160 $264 ($104)
Other Provisions
Appeal of Building Official Decision $170 $500 ($330)
1 GOV § 66015 (a)
2 Gov. Code 66015 (b)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Permit Refund (fee) New $271 N/A
Revision Processing Fee New $158 N/A
Reinstatement Fee
Original Building Permit Fee $500 or less New $105 N/A
Original Building Permit Fee more than $500 New 50% of
original fee N/A
Electrical Permit Fees
Installation, Alteration Relocation of Each Electrical
Service
First 200 Ampere Capacity with one meter
socket/base New $478 N/A
Each additional 100 Ampere Capacity or fraction
thereof New $56 N/A
Each additional meter socket/base New $11 N/A
Plumbing Permit Fees
For the Repair or Replacement of each
Waterline, Sewer Line or Drainage/Vent Piping
System (or as determined by the Building Official) New $247 N/A Refrigerant Piping System New $462 N/A
Water Piping System New $247 N/A
Water Heater or Water Storage Tank - Single Family
Dwelling New $193 N/A
Water Heater or Water Storage Tank - Non-Residential New $247 N/A Tank-less water Heater Gas-fired (includes gas line, &
exhaust vent & Electrical)
Residential New $193 N/A
Non-Residential New $462 N/A
Gas Piping System or Gas Service
Residential New $247 N/A
Non-Residential New $462 N/A
Mechanical Permit Fees
Furnace Replacement- Single Family Residence (<
100K Btu and < 40 lineal feet of new duct) New $247 N/A For the installation, relocation or replacement of each Commercial Heating, Cooling Refrigeration Appliance.
(Includes all necessary electrical circuits, fixtures,
switches receptacles, gas piping, vents or water
piping.) New $247 N/A
For the Installation, relocation or replacement of each Boiler. (Includes all necessary electrical circuits,
receptacles, switches, gas piping and vents - but does
not include motors identified in E6 of the schedule) New $139 N/A For the installation, relocation or replacement of Other Fuel Burning Appliances not listed in this schedule.
(Includes all necessary gas piping, vents, electrical
circuits receptacles and switches.) New $247 N/A
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each or Air Handler Unit, Heating or Cooling Coil or Element in a duct system. (Includes all necessary electrical
circuits, receptacles or switches and piping for cooling media.)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
0 to 400,000 Btu New $139 N/A
401,000 Btu and Over New $247 N/A
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each Radiant Heating Panel Radiator or Convertor
(including all necessary piping)
1 to 5 Devices New $139 N/A
Each Additional 5 Devices New $17 N/A
The fees administered by the Building Division are largely new, but of the existing fees, generally underrecover for their services. For Building Permit fees, the largest deficit is in relation to the ‘500,001+ - base’ fee at $1,076.65.

For Permits outside the valuation-based fees, the largest deficit is in relation to the ‘Appeal of Building Official Decision’ under the Other Provisions fees category at $330. The smallest under recovery is for the ‘Research Service Fee’ under the Misc Fees category at $15.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Based on the prior year’s workload information, Building has a deficit of roughly $208,000. The following table shows the revenue at the current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference by major fee category.

TABLE 5: ANNUAL RESULTS – BUILDING
Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Valuation & Sq. Ft. Based Fees $606,084 $792,945 ($186,861) Misc Fees $40,587 $60,301 ($19,714)
Solar $7,625 $9,564 ($1,939)
Electrical Permit Fees $6,751 $9,082 ($2,331)
Plumbing Permit Fees $6,622 $4,122 $2,500
Total $667,669 $876,014 ($208,346)
Building has an annual cost recovery of roughly 76%. The largest deficit is in relation to the valuationbased Building Permit Fees inspection and plan check fees. For the fees outside of the valuation and percentage-based fees, the largest deficit is in regard to the ‘Reroofing Permit’ under the Misc Fees category. Currently, the City charges $35 per 1,000 sq. ft. Ft; the total cost was calculated to be $52, resulting in a per-unit deficit of $17. The per-unit deficit, coupled with the roughly 1,160 times this permit was issued in the last year, resulted in the large cost recovery gap. The division should review these results and adjust fees appropriately to align with divisional and departmental cost recovery goals.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17
The Finance Department is responsible for overseeing the city’s financial operations, including accounting, payroll, accounts payable, collections, and utility billing. The Finance Department provides utility billing support for water. The following sections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per-unit results for the fee-related services associated with Finance.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the following fees as these services are no longer offered by City staff or are now offered by other departments within the City:
o ‘Copy of Annual Budget’
o ‘Annual Financial Report’
• Consolidated Fees: Staff proposed consolidating ‘Single/Commercial ($20 non-refundable)’, ‘Duplex ($20 non-refundable)’, and ‘After 2nd Disconnection’ into a ‘processing’ fee and ‘Deposit’ fee in order to simplify the fee schedule.
• Expanded Fees: Staff proposed expanding Returned Payment Charge (All Departments) to include two state set fees ‘First Check’ and ‘Second & Subsequent’ to better reflect the services offered.

The modifications proposed ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Finance staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Finance Department collects fees for Utility Billing and Finance Fees like Returned Payment Charges.

The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Division and Citywide overhead.

The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 6: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – FINANCE
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Utility Billing
Water and Service Connection
Processing $20 $217 ($197)
Deposit $70 $107 ($37)
Late Notice Fee $5 $5 $0
10 Day Disconnect Notice Fee $54 $54 $0
Water Turn On
After payment of delinquent account: 8a-4p $55 $102 ($47) After payment of delinquent account: after 4p $139 $274 ($135)

FINANCE

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
After 3rd notice for backflow recertification $307 $291 $16 Finance Fees
Returned Payment Charge (All Departments)
First Check3 $65 $25 $40
Second & Subsequent4 $65 $35 $30
The fees administered by the Finance Department are a mix of over- and under-recovery for its services.

The largest deficit is in relation to the ‘Water and Service Connection’ Fees, specifically the ‘Processing’ fee under the Utility Billing category for $197. The smallest non-deposit related under-recovery is in relation to ‘Water Turn On’ fees, specifically for an ‘After payment of delinquent account: 8a-4p’ fee at $47. The largest over-recovery is in relation to the ‘Returned Payment Charge (All Departments)’ Fees, specifically the ‘First Check’ fee at $40; however, this is a state-set fee. The smallest over-recovery is in relation to the ‘Water Turn On’ fees, specifically the ‘After 3rd notice for backflow recertification’ at $16.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Finance does record their utility billings and the number of checks returned at the per-unit level, as such annual results are not presented here.
3 CIV § 1719(a)
4 CIV § 1719(a)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19
The Fire Department, who is part of the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) and provides various fee related services such as fire related annual permits, Construction Fire Permits, Hazardous Materials, and New Business Fire Inspections, Re-Inspections and various other related fees. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual revenue impacts as appropriate for the fee-related services provided by the Fire Department.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions, staff proposed the addition of ‘Expedited Plan Review’, ‘Alternate Methods / Materials Request Fee’ and ‘Emergency Responder Radio Coverage’ as they highlight services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Fire Department collects fees for Annual Permits, Other Fees like Copies of Fire Reports and Firefighter Standby Fees, Construction Fire Permit Fees, and Hazardous Materials. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct consultant costs, Departmental, and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 7: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – FIRE
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Annual Permits
Aerosol Products $281 $284 ($3)
Asbestos/Lead Coating Removal $431 $465 ($34)
Automobile Wrecking Yard $290 $310 ($20)
Apartment House (incl. condos & congregate res.)
3 units to 10 units $290 $310 ($20)
11 units to 20 units $365 $387 ($22)
Greater than 20 units $365 $387 ($22)
Per Unit Over 20 $1.30 $1.72 ($0.42)
Battery system $144 $155 ($11)
Candles or Open Flames in Assembly Areas (may
combine with assembly permit
$144 $155 ($11)
Carnivals or Fairs $431 $465 ($34)
Cellulose Nitrate Storage $361 $387 ($26)
Combustible Fiber Storage $290 $310 ($20)
Combustible Material Storage $290 $310 ($20)
Compressed Gases (in excess of the amts. listed in CFC, Table 105-A)
$290 $310 ($20)
Commercial Rubbish Handling Plant $420 $465 ($45)
FIRE

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Cryogen's (in excess of the amounts listed in CFC, Table 105-B)
$431 $465 ($34)
Dry Cleaning Plants $290 $310 ($20)
Dust Producing Operations $290 $310 ($20)
Explosives or Blasting Agents $431 $465 ($34)
Fireworks Display (fees for standby Fire staff, when req'd, are add'l) $420
$431 $465 ($34)
Flammable or Combustible Liquid Pipeline $431 $465 ($34) To Store, Handle or Use Flam/Combust. Liquids $215 $232 ($17) Flammable or Combustible Liquids in Tanks, vessels > 60 gal. capacity); largest
$431 $465 ($34)
Up to 10,000 gallons tank size:
1 tank $418 $439 ($21)
2-3 tanks
Base $418 $439 ($21)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $125 $129 ($4)
3 + tanks
Base $558 $594 ($36)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $290 $310 ($20)
Over 10,000 to 100,000 gallons tank size:
1 tank $629 $672 ($43)
2-3 tanks
Base $629 $672 ($43)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $290 $310 ($20)
3+ tanks
Base $834 $879 ($45)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $290 $310 ($20)
Over 100,000 gallons tank size:
1 tank $1,256 $1,344 ($88)
2-3 tanks
Base $1,256 $1,344 ($88)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $312 $336 ($24)
3+ tanks
Base $1,256 $1,344 ($88)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $312 $336 ($24)
Tank Vehicles $215 $232 ($17)
Install, Alter, Remove, Abandon, Place Temporarily Any $578 $620 ($42) Fumigation or Thermal Insecticidal Fogging: $215
Hazardous Materials (to store, disperse, handle amounts in excess of the quantities listed in CFC table 105.620) refer to Hazardous material table HM-1
High-Piled Combustible Storage $431 $465 ($34)
High-Rise Building Annual Inspection $431 $465 ($34)
Hot work operations: $216 $232 ($16)
Hotels, Motels and Lodging Houses $290 $310 ($20)
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (except portable containers
<125 gal. cap.)
$290 $310 ($20)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Liquid/Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly
Buildings
$216 $232 ($16)
Lumber Yards (over 100,000 board feet) $290 $310 ($20)
Magnesium Working $216 $232 ($16)
Mall, Covered $431 $465 ($34)
Motor vehicle fuel dispensing stations: $431 $465 ($34) Occupant Load Increase $290 $310 ($20)
Open Burning $290 $310 ($20)
Ovens, Industrial Baking or Drying $290 $310 ($20)
Places of Assembly (churches, schools, NPOs permitted
at no fee)
A-1, A-2, A-2.1 $341 $362 ($21)
A-3, A-4 $279 $284 ($5)
Special Assembly events $279 $284 ($5)
Pyrotechnic Special Effects Material (fees for standby Fire staff, when required,
$426 $465 ($39)
Refrigeration Equipment $216 $232 ($16)
Repair Garage $290 $310 ($20)
Spraying or Dipping $290 $310 ($20)
Temporary membrane structures, tents, and canopies $290 $310 ($20) Tire Storage $290 $310 ($20)
Wood Products (over 200 cu. ft.) $290 $310 ($20)
Other Fire Fees
Copy of Fire Report $22 $25 ($3)
False Alarm in Excess of 3 per Calendar Year (accidental or equipment)
$180 $310 ($130)
Fire Hazard Abatement performed by City or City
Contractor (including, but not limited to, combustible or flammable vegetation removal)
Abatement cost plus administrative fee
New Business Fire Inspection $218 $232 ($14)
Re-Inspection Fee (for each following second reinspection) $148 $155 ($7)
Standby Engine Company
First Hour $370 $677 ($307)
Each Additional Half Hour $108 $338 ($230)
Standby Firefighter (1 hour minimum) $119 $215 ($96)
Work Performed after Normal Working Hours (Callback is
a 3-hr min)
$216 $248 ($32)
Expedited Plan Review New 1.5x Plan
Review
N/A
Alternate Methods / Materials Request Fee New $310 N/A
Construction Fire Permit Fees:

Automatic Sprinkler System Permit (installation of suspended piping larger than 4" nominal pipe size also requires Building Department approval of imposed loading on structure):

For other than 1 and 2 family dwellings:

New (per sq. ft.) $0.26 $0.33 ($0.07)
Minimum Fee $330.00 $450 ($120)
Alteration (per sq. ft. of protected area,) $0.26 $0.17 $0.09

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Minimum Fee $206.00 $300 ($94)
One and Two-family dwellings:

New (per sq. ft.) $0.26 $0.42 ($0.16)
Minimum Fee $218 $300 ($82)
Alteration (per sq. ft. of protected area) $0.26 $0.25 $0.01 Minimum Fee $136 $200 ($64)
Fixed Extinguishing System Permit: New and Upgrade
Installations
$456 $450 $6
Fire Plan Check and resubmittal $150 $150 $0
Fire Alarm Permit $228 $250 ($22)
Construction, Alteration & Renovation Permit $198 $200 ($2) Emergency Responder Radio Coverage New $450 N/A
Gas Piping System Installation Permit $361 $375 ($14)
Underground Fire Protection Piping Permit $479 $525 ($46) Consultant Service Fee (actual cost-plus admin fee) $57 $300 ($243) Document Review (per hour) $144 $300 ($156)
Hydrant Flow Test $643 $650 ($7)
Other Services (per half hour and portion thereof) $72 $150 ($78) Re-Inspection Fee (for each following second reinspection) $148 $300 ($152)
Hazardous Materials Table Schedule:

Range Solids (pounds)
1 0 to 500 $408 $450 ($42)
2 >500 to 5,000 $571 $600 ($29)
3 >5,000 to 25,000 $765 $800 ($35)
4 >25,000 to 50,000 1114 $1,151 ($37)
5 >50,000 to 80,000 $1,613 $1,651 ($38)
6 >80,000 to 120,000 $2,334 $2,402 ($68)
7 >120,000 $3,037 $3,153 ($116)
Range Liquids (gallons)
1 0 to 55 $408 $450 ($42)
2 >55 to 550 $571 $600 ($29)
3 >550 to 2,750 $764 $800 ($36)
4 >2,750 to 5,500 $1,114 $1,151 ($37)
5 >5,500 to 10,000 $1,613 $1,651 ($38)
6 >10,000 to 15,000 $2,334 $2,402 ($68)
7 > 15,000 3037 $3,153 ($116)
Range Gas (cubic feet)
1 0 to 200 $316 $375 ($59)
2 >200 to 2,000 $571 $600 ($29)
3 >2,000 to 10,000 $764 $800 ($36)
4 >10,000 to 20,000 $1,114 $1,151 ($37)
5 >20,000 to 40,000 $1,613 $1,651 ($38)
6 >40,000 to 60,000 $2,334 $2,402 ($68)
7 >60,000 $3,037 $3,153 ($116)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23
The fees administered by the Fire Department mostly under-recover. The largest deficit is in relation to ‘Standby Engine Company’, specifically the ‘First Hour’ fees under Other Fire Fees at $307. The smallest under recovery is for the ‘Automatic Sprinkler System Permit (installation of suspended piping larger than 4" nominal pipe size also requires Building Department approval of imposed loading on structure): ‘, specifically the ‘For other than 1 and 2 family dwelling: - New (per sq. ft.)’ under the Construction Fire Permit Fees category at $0.07.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Fire does not record the number of permits issued, general fees charged, and hazardous materials fees charged at the per-unit level, as such annual results are not presented here.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24
The Marina Department is responsible for managing the Marina’s fleet, slip rentals, guest berthing, fishing pier, and the bay trail. The majority of the fees charged by the Marina are for the use of space and as such are not covered under this analysis. The only fees evaluated in this analysis are the fees that are time-based. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual results for the fee-related services provided by the Marina Department.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
No modifications were proposed to the Marina’s fee schedule as it relates to the services being evaluated in this study.

DETAILED RESULTS
While the Marina offers more fees than we listed, we only analyzed the Marina’s service-based fees. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Division and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 8: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – MARINA
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Application Fee (Non-Refundable) $25 $474 ($449)
Dock Wheel / Fender Wheel Installation
For One $50 $142 ($92)
For Two $80 $142 ($62)
Slip Transfer Fee $25 $71 ($46)
Lien Fee $180 $302 ($122)
The largest under-recovery is for an ‘Application Fee (Non-Refundable)’ under Move-In Costs at $449., followed by the lien fee at $122.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
While the Marina tracks the detailed information for each of the rentals, as the scope of this analysis wasn’t a full review of the Marina’s use of space fees, the annual revenue impact was not calculated.

MARINA

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25
The Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for assisting the Parks and Recreation Commission on policy decisions, organizing and administering community programs like camps, athletics, aquatics, social services, and cultural events for all age ranges, as well as managing the City’s public facilities like parks, trails, community centers, and pool. The following sections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual results for the fee-related services provided by Parks and Recreation staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with Parks and Recreation staff, the following modifications were made to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed the elimination of the ‘Adult- Non-Resident Summer’ fee under the Daily Admission Category, as this fee is no longer offered by the Parks and Recreation staff. • Modified Fees: Staff proposed modifying the Daily Camp Fee section’s resident and non-resident fees to include ‘summer camp’ and ‘break camp’ in order to more accurately reflect the services offered.

The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Parks and Recreation staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Parks and Recreation Department collects fees for a wide variety of services. Due to the nature of these services being unique and market-based, not all fees were evaluated. In this study, fees for Facility Rentals, Aquatics, Youth Activities, and Senior lunches were evaluated. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 9: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PARKS AND RECREATION Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Facility Rentals
Mission Blue Center
Residential
1 Room - Weekday $192 $285 ($93)
Entire Facility - Weekday $297 $379 ($82)
1 Room - Weekend $239 $302 ($63)
Entire Facility - Weekend $371 $407 ($36)
Non-Residential
1 Room - Weekday $292 $285 $7
Entire Facility - Weekday $432 $379 $53
1 Room - Weekend $357 $302 $55
Entire Facility - Weekend $547 $407 $140

PARKS AND RECREATION

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Aquatics
Daily Admission
Adult
Resident $7 $21 ($14)
Non-Resident $11 $21 ($10)
Youth/Senior
Resident $5 $21 ($16)
Non-Resident $8 $21 ($13)
Monthly Passes
Adult Resident $66 $213 ($147)
Adult Non-Resident $113 $213 ($100)
Swim Lessons
Swim Lessons (8): Resident
Lesson Package $88 $296 ($208)
Per Class $11 $37 ($26)
Swim Lessons (8): Non-Resident
Lesson Package $120 $296 ($176)
Per Class $15 $37 ($22)
Semi-Private Swim Lessons (4)
Resident $128 $200 ($72)
Non-Resident $185 $200 ($15)
Private Swim Lesson (4)
Resident $178 $334 ($156)
Non-Resident $258 $334 ($76)
Pool Rentals
Rec Swim Party
Resident $171 $397 ($226)
Non-Resident $248 $397 ($149)
Rec Swim Party
Resident $350 $629 ($279)
Non-Resident $500 $629 ($129)
Misc Rec Fees
Lifeguard Certification $238 $279 ($41)
Piranha Swim Club
Resident $6 $18 ($12)
Non-Resident $9 $18 ($9)
Youth Activities
Club Rec Monthly
Resident $1,961 $2,640 ($679)
Non-Resident $2,726 $2,640 $86
Daily Camp Fee
Summer Camp
Resident $43 $49 ($6)
Non-Resident $60 $49 $11
Break Camps

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Resident $43 $54 ($11)
Non-Resident $60 $54 $6
Preschool
Resident $7 $9 ($2)
Non-Resident $9 $9 $0
Seniors
Senior Lunches $10 $133 ($123)
Misc. Fee
Processing Fee for Refunds $7 $9 ($2)
Nearly all of the fees administered by the Parks and Recreation Department under-recover. The largest under-recovery is in relation to ‘Resident’ fees under the Club Rec Monthly section at $680. The smallest under-recovery is in relation to the ‘Resident’ fee under the Preschool section or the ‘Processing Fee for Refunds’ at $2.

It is important to note that Parks and Recreation fees are different in the sense that they’re based on what the market can bear and, as such, do not have to be set based on the cost of the service, but rather the market rate. Therefore, even if there are over or under-recoveries, the City must evaluate the information in the context of the desirability of the services and the rentals to determine where and how to change their fees.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Parks and Recreation do track annual activities, but as they vary based on season and participation no annual revenue impacts were calculated.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28
The Planning Division is part of the Community Development Department. The Planning Division is responsible for long-term and current planning, turning the City’s general plan into zoning regulations, area plans, and policy updates, as well as advising the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator.

The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per-unit results for the feerelated services provided by Planning staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the following fees as these services are no longer offered by City staff or are now offered by other departments within the City:
o Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit
o Setback Exception Modifications
o ‘Categorical Exemption’
o ‘Zoning enforcement penalty’
o Concept reviews
o ‘Tie-vote at Planning Commission’
• New Fees: To better align with where and how services are provided, the following fees have been reassigned to their respective departments.
o ‘Ministerial Subdivision Map’
o ‘HCP Operating Program Revision’
o ‘Zoning Conformance Letter’
o ‘Height Exception to Accommodate Accessibility Improvements per BMC 17.32.060.D’ o ‘Ministerial Parcel Map’
• Expanded Fees: Staff proposed the expansion of the following fees to better reflect the services offered:
o Sign Programs was expanded to include two new fees: ‘New’ and ‘Revision to existing’. o Housing Development Permit was expanded to include two new fees: ‘Base’ and ‘Per Additional Unit’
o ‘Parking lot redesign/landscape plan review (per BMC section 15.70.030)’ was broken out into Parking lot redesign and landscape plan review.
o ‘Tree Removal Permit’ was expanded to include ‘1-5 trees’ and ‘6+Trees’

PLANNING

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29
o ‘Address Assignment’ was expanded to include ‘Required as condition of approval on a building permit’ and ‘Not required as condition of approval on a building permit’ • Consolidated Fees: Staff proposed the following consolidations in order to simplify the fee schedule:
o ‘General Plan Map’, ‘General Plan Text’, ‘Zoning Map’, and ‘Zoning Ordinance Text’ were consolidated into a single deposit fee for ‘General / Zoning Map or Text’. o ‘Solar Height Limit Exception per BMC 17.32.060.C’ was consolidated into a single fee. • Modified Fees: Staff proposed the modification of the following fees in order to better reflect the services offered:
o ‘Plan Lines’ was changed from charging based on each plan line to a deposit. o ‘Planning Technician’ was changed to ‘Community Development Technician’. o ‘Amendment to Approved Tentative Map or Ministerial Parcel Map’ was changed to ‘Amendment to Approved Tentative Map’
o ‘All other Appeals’ was changed to ‘Appeals’
The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule better reflects the services being provided by Planning staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Planning Division collects fees for Planning Permits, Use Permits, Home Occupation Permits, Sign Permits, Amendments, Subdivisions, Appeals, Environmental Reviews, Tree Removals, Short Term Rentals, Housing Development Permits, and Stormwater Review/Inspection. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 10: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PLANNING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Full Cost Hourly Rates by Staff Position:

Director $292 $370 ($78)
Principal Planner $223 $304 ($81)
Senior Planner $188 $295 ($107)
Associate Planner $158 $258 ($100)
Building Permit Technician $120 $210 ($90)
Community Development Technician $120 $226 ($106)
Administrative Assistant $117 $221 ($104)
Office Specialist $110 $196 ($86)
Permits:

Use Permits:

Conditional uses listed in District Regulations not listed below $1,376 $7,422 ($6,046) Transfer of development rights within the R- BA district $3,145 $8,861 ($5,716) Clustered development within the R-BA district $3,145 $8,861 ($5,716)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Height Limits per BMC 17.32.060.B $1,376 $4,992 ($3,616) Condominium conversion of existing dwelling units $1,892 $8,194 ($6,302) Non conforming parking
in R and NCRO districts $1,376 $7,089 ($5,713)
in other districts $1,892 $7,089 ($5,197)
Use Permit to Expand Nonconforming Residential Uses $1,376 $7,089 ($5,713) Home Occupation Permits:

Home occupations in residential districts $45 $172 ($127) Design Permits:

Design Permit for new construction: residential $2,089 $9,610 ($7,521) Design Permit for new construction: non-residential or mixed use $3,489 $13,804 ($10,315)
Design Permit for remodeling existing structures $2,089 $12,100 ($10,011) Design Permit Extension $1,610 $4,825 ($3,215)
Variance:

Variance to code provisions for new construction to all structures $1,575 $7,861 ($6,286)
Variance to code provisions for remodel of existing structures residential structures $1,180 $7,089 ($5,909)
other structures $1,575 $7,089 ($5,514)
Sign Permits:

Sign permits in all districts
with Hearing $920 $6,922 ($6,002)
without Hearing $387 $661 ($274)
Sign Programs
New $1,066 $8,194 ($7,128)
Revision to existing $1,066 $3,705 ($2,639)
Planned Development Permits:

Planned Development Permit $5,000 $5,000 $0
Development Agreements:

Development Agreement $5,000 $5,000 $0
Specific Plans:

Specific Plan $5,000 $5,000 $0
Exceptions to the Code:

Exceptions to Fence Regulations $648 $3,059 ($2,411)
Solar Height limits Exception per BMC 17.32.060.C $648 $1,415 ($767) Setback Exception Modification Public Hearing $648 $3,061 ($2,413) Height Exception to Accommodate Accessibility
Improvements per BMC 17.32.060.D New $1,415 N/A
Minor Modifications:

Modifications per BMC 17.56.090 $648 $4,992 ($4,344)
Grading Permits:

Grading Permit Review by Planning Commission
500 CY or less $1,771 $3,128 ($1,357)
More than 500 CY New $6.21 N/A
Amendments:

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
General / Zoning Map or Text $2,007 $18,879 ($16,872)
Subdivisions:

Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Plans with 5 or more lots/units $3,476 $15,038 ($11,562)
Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Plans – per lot $275 $285 ($10) Tentative Parcel Map and Condominium Plans with 4 or less lots/units $3,476 $12,517 ($9,041)
Ministerial Subdivision Map New $13,589 N/A
Final Parcel Map $529 $3,801 ($3,272)
Final Subdivision Map $705 $5,726 ($5,021)
Time Extension for Approved Tentative Map $1,620 $7,528 ($5,908) Amendment to Approved Tentative Map $1,620 $7,861 ($6,241) Ministerial Parcel Map New $4,750 N/A
Correction/Amendment to Final Map $447 $2,776 ($2,329)
Modifications to Subdivision Provisions $1,729 $7,861 ($6,132) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map $6,961 $15,038 ($8,077) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map – per lot $275 $285 ($10) Certificate of Compliance per GC 66499.35(a) and (b) $1,157 $6,122 ($4,965) Certificate of Compliance per GC 66499.35 (c) $447 $2,776 ($2,329) Lot Line Adjustment $1,157 $4,750 ($3,593)
Parcel Map Waivers $1,157 $6,122 ($4,965)
Reversions to Acreage $1,157 $6,122 ($4,965)
Lot Merger $447 $2,776 ($2,329)
Appeals $454 $3,367 ($2,913)
Environmental Review:

Initial Study/Negative Declaration $3,076 $16,708 ($13,632) Environmental Impact Reports
Consultant
Cost + 10%
Consultant
Cost + 10% N/A
Mitigation Monitoring-Inspections etc. Hourly Hourly N/A Other Services:

HCP Operating Program Revision New $14,038 N/A
Pre-application Review Hourly $285 N/A
Administrative review subsequent documents from Con. of Appr. Hourly $285 N/A Parking lot redesign/Landscape plan review (per BMC section

15.70.030) $692 $2,059 ($1,367)
Research record search Hourly $226 N/A
Technical report review
Consultant
Cost + 10%
Consultant
Cost + 10% N/A
Telecommunications Administrative Permit $1,270 $5,860 ($4,590) Alcohol Public Convenience Necessity (PCN) $648 $3,763 ($3,115) Tree Removal Permit
1-5 trees $397 $1,340 ($943)
6+ trees $397 $2,490 ($2,093)
Administrative Appeal (to City Manager) $114 $2,262 ($2,148) Address Assignment

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Required as condition of approval on a building permit $131 $396 ($265) Not required as conditition of approval on a building permit $131 $682 ($551) Construction Noise Exception Permit per BMC 8.28.080 $784 $3,253 ($2,469) Outdoor Sound Amplification Request $229 $642 ($413)
Short Term Rental Permit
New $369 $1,010 ($641)
Renewal $369 $455 ($86)
C.3 Stormwater Review/Inspection
Review
Consultant
Cost + 10%
Consultant
Cost + 10% N/A
Inspection $191 $191 $0
Housing Development Permit
Base 2-10 units $2,627 $9,610 ($6,983)
Per Additional Unit Modified $285 N/A
Plan Lines $3,476 $5,000 ($1,524)
Lighting Deviation $648 $2,896 ($2,248)
Consultant Management Fee 10% 0% $0.10
Zoning Conformance Letter New $894 N/A
Nearly all of the fees administered by the Planning Division under-recover for their associated costs. The largest under-recovery is $13,632 for an ‘Initial Study/Negative Declaration’. The smallest under-recovery outside of the Full Cost Hourly Rates by Staff Position: is in relation to the ‘Subdivisions:’ fees, specifically the ‘Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Plans with 5 or more lots/units’ and the ‘Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map’ fee under the Permits: category at $10.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Based on the prior year’s workload information, Planning has a deficit of roughly $83,000. The following table shows the revenue at the current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference by major fee category.

TABLE 11: ANNUAL RESULTS – PLANNING
Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Use Permits $2,752 $14,511 ($11,759)
Variance $1,575 $7,861 ($6,286)
Sign Permits $1,307 $7,583 ($6,276)
Grading Permits $3,542 $6,256 ($2,714)
Amendments $2,007 $18,879 ($16,872)
Subdivisions $8,551 $34,293 ($25,742)
Telecommunications Administrative Permit $1,270 $5,860 ($4,590) Tree Removal Permit $2,779 $9,380 ($6,601)
Outdoor Sound Amplification Request $229 $642 ($413)
Short Term Rental Permit $1,107 $3,030 ($1,923)
Total $25,119 $108,295 ($83,176)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33
Planning has an annual cost recovery of roughly 23%. The largest under-recovery is in relation to the Subdivisions category, specifically the ‘Lot Line Adjustment’. This fee specifically makes up $14,372 of the difference. Currently, the city charges $1,157 per adjustment; the total cost was calculated to be $4,750, resulting in a per-unit deficit of $3,593. The large per-unit deficit, coupled with the roughly 4 times this permit was administered in the past year, results in the large cost recovery gap. The department should review these results and adjust fees appropriately to align with divisional and departmental cost recovery goals.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34
The Police Department provides public safety services to the public and provides fee-related services as it relates to fingerprinting, concealed weapons, and massage permits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by the Police staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the ‘Repeat Nuisance Call’ and ‘Private Patrol Permit’ fees, as these services are no longer offered.
• Modified Fees: Staff proposed modifying ‘Copies of Tape Recordings’ to ‘Copies of Digital Media’ in order to better reflect the services offered.

The modifications noted ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Police staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Police Department collects fees for Copies of Reports, Alarm System Permits, Clearance & Good Conduct Letters, Concealed Weapons, Fingerprinting, Massage Certificate of Registration, Photographs, and Vehicle Releases. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name and total cost associated with each service offered.

TABLE 12: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – POLICE
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Copies of Reports $0 $239 ($239)
Alarm System Permits $0 $94 ($94)
Bicycle Registration $0 $35 ($35)
Booking Fee $0 $98 ($98)
Clearance & Good Conduct Letters:

Resident $6 $35 ($29)
Non-Resident $39 $35 $4
Subpoena Dues / Tecum Processing $39 $24 $15
Concealed Weapons:

Permit Process $75 $379 ($304)
Renewal Fee $0 $94 ($94)
Copies of Digital Media $37 $211 ($174)
Court Appearance All Personnel $275 $275 $0
False Alarms - Structure $0 $53 ($53)
POLICE

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Fingerprinting:

Resident: Adult $36 $89 ($53)
Resident: Minor $0 $89 ($89)
Non-Resident $112 $89 $23
Massage Certificate of Registration:

Registration $135 $379 ($244)
Early Renewal $35 $94 ($59)
Special Event Permit $0 $379 ($379)
Photographs:

Copies (plus actual costs) $103 $18 $85
Enlargements (plus actual costs) $103 $21 $82
Vehicle Releases:

Vehicle Releases / Enforcement $63 $68 ($5)
Vehicle Releases / Abandonment $63 $68 ($5)
Film Crew $622 $663 ($41)
Repossessed Vehicle Release5 $15 $15 $0
The majority of the fees administered by the Police Department under-recover for their associated costs.

The largest under-recovery is in relation to the ‘Special Event Permit’ and the ‘Private Patrol Permit Fee’ at $379. The smallest under-recovery is in relation to the ‘Vehicle Releases’ fees, specifically the ‘Vehicle Releases / Enforcement’ and ‘Vehicle Releases / Abandonment’ at $5. The largest over-recovery is in relation to the ‘Photographs’ fees, specifically the ‘Copies (Plus actual costs)’ at $85. The smallest overrecovery is in relation to the ‘Clearance & Good Conduct Letters’ fees, specifically the ‘Non-Resident’ fee at $4.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
The Police do not record their fees at the per-unit level, and as such, annual results are not presented here.
5 GOV § 26751

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36
The Public Works Department is responsible for coordinating the planning, engineering, and maintenance & improvement of the city’s roads, sewer, storm drains, lighting, and facilities. The Public Works Department offers various fee-related services, including Grading Permits, Special Permits, Encroachment Permits, Site Work Permits, Water and Sewer-related Permits, and Subdivision Maps. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by the Public Works staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: To better align with where and how services are provided ‘3rd and subsequent Plan Checks’ and ‘3rd and subsequent Inspections’ were added. • Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the following fees, as these services are no longer offered or covered under other permits.
o ‘Blasting Permit’
o ‘Grading Permit (paving) and drainage alteration’
o ‘Retaining Wall Design’
• Deposit To Flat Fees: Staff proposed modifying the following fees from deposit to flat fees in order to better reflect the services offered.
o Grading permits were changed from deposit to flat fees o Encroachment permits were changed from an hourly inspection fee to flat fees based on the construction valuation.
• Flat Fees to Deposits: Staff proposed changing the following fees from flat fees to deposit-based fees:
o ‘Final Parcel Map Review: - Land Surveyor Review’
o ‘Water, Sewer, Storm Drain system capacity modeling’
‘The modifications noted ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Police staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Public Works Department is responsible for collecting fees for Grading Permits and Misc. Permits such as Special Permits, Site Work Permits, Final Parcel Map Reviews, Temporary Construction Meters, Water Service Inspections & Meter, Sanitary Sewer Lateral Service Inspections, Final Subdivision Maps, and Water, Sewer, Storm Drain System Capacity Modeling. The total cost calculated for each service

PUBLIC WORKS

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37
includes direct staff costs and Division and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name and total cost associated with each service offered by the group category.

TABLE 13: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PUBLIC WORKS
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Grading Permits
Grading Permit - Plan Check:
0-5 cub. yds. (no permit required) $0 $0 $0
6-50 cub. yds. $115 $183 ($68)
51-100 cub. yds. $115 $258 ($143)
101-1,000 cub. yds. $463 $484 ($21)
1,001-10,000 cub. yds. $929 $935 ($6)
10,001-100,000 cub. yds. $4,993 $5,444 ($451)
100,001-200,000 cub. yds. $8,323 $9,052 ($729)
200,000 or more cub. yds. $16,650 $16,568 $82
3rd and subsequent Plan Checks New $300 N/A
Geotechnical Peer Review $5,000 $5,000 $0
Grading Permit - Inspection:
0-5 cub. yds. (no permit required) $0 $0 $0
6-50 cub. yds. $460 $549 ($89)
51-100 cub. yds. $923 $1,238 ($315)
101-1,000 cub. yds. $16,528 $3,477 $13,051
1,001-10,000 cub. yds. $24,799 $6,922 $17,877
10,001-100,000 cub. yds. $10,000 $13,812 ($3,812)
100,000 - 200,000 cub. yds. $10,000 $17,257 ($7,257)
200,000 + cub. yds. $10,000 $25,869 ($15,869)
3rd and subsequent Inspections New $172 N/A
Grading Permit - SWPPP Compliance
Single Parcel (assessed every 2 reviews)
Single Parcel (assessed every 2 reviews): Admin + Inspection $162 $269 ($107) Force Account for Remediation $591 $645 ($54)
Subdivision subject to Map Act Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews) Subdivision subject to Map Act Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews): Admin + Inspection
$651 $656 ($5)
Force Account for Remediation Actual Cost
of Erosion
Control Plan
$645 N/A
Development subject to C.3 Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews) Development subject to C.3 Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews): Admin + Inspection
$1,306 $1,451 ($145)
Force Account for Remediation Actual Cost
of Erosion
Control Plan
$645 N/A
Misc. Permits
Special Permit (after hours work):

Special Permit (after hours work) $233 $214 $19

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Inspection / Work $500 $500 $0
Truck Haul Permit $115 $108 $7
Encroachment Permit
Cost of ROW Improvements
Up to $49,999 New $1,529 N/A
$50,000 New $1,529 N/A
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof New $224 N/A $100,000 New $2,647 N/A
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof New $262 N/A $250,000 New $6,584 N/A
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof New $144 N/A $500,000 New $10,176 N/A
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof New $85 N/A $1,000,000+ New $14,421 N/A
each additional $100,000 or fraction thereof New $21 N/A Site Work Permit:

Engineering Review (assessed every 2 reviews) $461 $601 ($140) Fast Track Review $442 $579 ($137)
Tentative Parcel Map Review $629 $676 ($47)
Final Parcel Map Review:

Final Parcel Map Review $629 $901 ($272)
Land Surveyor Review $1,500 $5,000 ($3,500)
Water Service Inspection and Meter:
5/8" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $551 $1,104 ($553) 3/4" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $569 $1,245 ($676) 1" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $607 $1,370 ($763)

1.5" Meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $961 $1,859 ($898) 2" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $1,522 $2,203 ($681) 3" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $2,663 $4,154 ($1,491) 4" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $3,092 $4,918 ($1,826) Sanitary Sewer Lateral Service - Inspection:

Single Family Unit $353 $764 ($411)
Multiple Unit Dwelling $706 $1,108 ($402)
Commercial, Industrial, Public & Other Uses $706 $1,183 ($477) Final Subdivision Map:

Base $8,025 $8,418 ($393)
Per Lot $500 $526 ($26)
Fire Hydrant Flow Test $755 $799 ($44)
Water, Sewer, Storm Drain system capacity modeling:

City Staff Cost $450 $628 ($178)
Consultant Modeling $5,000 $5,000 $0
The fees administered by Public Works generally under-recover for its services. The largest underrecovery is in relation to the ‘Grading Permit – Inspection:’ fees, specifically the ‘200,000+ Cub. Yds.’ fee at $15,869. The smallest under-recovery is in relation to the ‘Grading Permit – SWPPP Compliance’ fees,

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39
specifically the ‘Subdivision subject to Map Act Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews) - Subdivision subject to Map Act Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews): Admin + Inspection’ under the grading permits at $5.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Public Works does not track the permits at the granular level of detail as such no annual revenue impact analysis was conducted.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40
There are two typical surcharges assessed as part of the development review process – General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology Fee. Currently, the City of Brisbane does not assess a General Plan Maintenance Fee and only assesses a Technology fee. The following subsections discuss the calculation and application of the General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology Fee and provides comparative context to other jurisdictions.

GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE
A General Plan Maintenance fee is meant to account for updates to the general plan, zoning ordinance, housing elements, and other long-range planning activities that are part of the larger General Plan.

The General Plan Maintenance fee is governed by Government Code Section 66014(b), which states that fees “may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and recommendations.” This code states that fees can be charged against zoning changes, zoning variances, use permits, building inspections, and filing applications.

More typically, the fee is charged during the building permit phase to ensure any development project, which gets to that phase, makes enough of an impact to require the need for an update to the Zoning Code or the General Plan. This fee should only be applied to major building permits (i.e., new or remodel / tenant improvements) rather than standalone permits for water heaters or electrical outlets.

The project team took the estimated cost associated with updating the General Plan and divided it by the years over which those services would be provided to calculate the annualized cost. The following table breaks out by category the components that comprise the total annual cost calculation.

TABLE 14: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – ANNUAL COSTS
Task Budget # of Years Annual Cost
General Plan Update $500,000 15 $33,333
Total Annual Cost $500,000 $33,333
The annual cost to the City for updating their general plan was calculated to be roughly $33,333. The City currently does not charge a General Plan Maintenance Fee, as such we calculated the fee as a percentage of the City’s building permit fees, which is the most common methodology. An alternative approach is based on the building valuation. The following table shows the general plan maintenance fee calculation based on both approaches:

TABLE 15: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION
Category % of Permit Fee % of Building Valuation
Annual Cost $33,333 $33,333
Base $467,404 $35,384,951
General Plan Maintenance Fee 7% 0.09%

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SURCHARGES

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41
As the table indicates, the calculated Comprehensive Plan Maintenance Fee is 7% of the building permit or 0.09% of the building valuation.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of a General Plan Maintenance Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 16: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Burlingame 0.20% of the Building Valuation
Daly City 1.00% of the project valuation
Emeryville 0.50% of construction valuation
Millbrae 0.39% of project valuation
San Bruno 0.90% of the building valuation
South San Francisco 0.30% of Bldg. Valuation
The fees charged by all other jurisdictions is a percentage of the building valuation. It is a best practice to charge this fee as either percentage of building permit fee or building valuation. The City’s full cost calculated at 0.09% of the Building Valuation would still be lower than all the surveyed jurisdictions. Even though building valuation is the common methodology used by surrounding jurisdiction, applying this fee as a percentage of the building permit fee has a stronger nexus as it ensures that the fee charged for long-range planning never exceeds the building permit fee.

TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE FEE
A Technology Fee allows a jurisdiction to support the costs associated with its permitting system, staff time for managing the systems, acquiring the system, mobile devices used for permitting, etc. The City of Brisbane currently charges a plan maintenance fee to capture the costs for technology and develops a budget annually for those technology-related needs. The project team utilized the annual budget for Plan Maintenance to calculate the updated technology fee. The following table shows, by line item, the FY26 adopted budget for technology-related costs for development activities.

TABLE 17: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE COST COMPONENTS
Item Fee # of Years Annual Cost
Tech Fee $1,000,000 20 $50,000
Total Annual Cost $50,000
Based upon the items needed to maintain the permitting system, annual technology-related costs are approximately $50,000.

The most defensible methodology for assessing a technology fee is based proportionately on the percentage of the permit fee, as the greater the permit fee, the more software utilization and storage space is required. The City does not utilize this method and instead charges a fee of $1.63 per plan. As

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42
such, the project team calculated the rate as a percentage for the City by taking the total Technology Annual Cost and dividing it by the annual fee-related cost associated with departments that utilize the permitting software (Building & Planning). The following table shows this calculation:

TABLE 18: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE CALCULATION
Category Technology Fee Calculation
Total Annual Technology Cost $50,000
Total Building & Planning Permit Fees $984,309
Technology Surcharge 5%
Based upon this calculation, the City’s full cost Technology fee would be 5% of the permit fee. Therefore, if a permit fee was $100, the Technology fee collected would be $5.00; whereas if a permit fee was $1,000, the Technology fee collected would be $50. This type of structure enables the Technology fee to be more proportionately distributed based upon the projects and their impact upon the system. The City’s current fee is $1.63 per plan, which is not comparable to the calculated full cost of 5% of the permit fee.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of a Technology Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 19: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Burlingame 2% of the Fee
Daly City 9% of the Building Permit Fee
Emeryville 0.10% of Construction Valuation
Millbrae 7% of Permit Fee
San Bruno 10% of the Permit Fees
The full cost calculated for the City is the third lowest at 5% when compared to the other jurisdictions surveyed.

SURCHARGE FUND BEST PRACTICES
It is a best practice to collect and account for General Plan Maintenance and Technology surcharges in separate accounts, as doing so ensures compliance with funding requirements, enables appropriate allocation of funds to general plan or technology-related activities, and mitigates any potential issues with the comingling of funds.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43
The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determine annual update factors, and develop cost recovery policies and procedures.

FEE ADJUSTMENTS
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under- and overcollecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the study results and adjust fees per Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following points outline the major options the City has in adjusting its fees:
• Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with the full cost of providing the service. • Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately. • Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low-cost recovery levels, or which would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to increase fees gradually over a set period.

The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that currently show an over-recovery are straightforward, the following subsections provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees.

FULL COST RECOVERY
Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant increase associated with full cost recovery.

Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often, these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees that cannot be increased.

The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested, the City is recovering the full cost of its services.

COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44

PHASED INCREASES
Depending on current cost recovery levels, some current fees may need to be increased significantly to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the type of permit or review or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching its cost recovery goals.

As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing 20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, to comply with proposed recovery levels. Assuming this service is something the City provides quite often and affects various members of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost recovery is achieved.

Raising fees over a set period not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact to applicants but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases. Continuing with the example above, the City could increase the fee by $150 per year for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window after which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed.

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general recommendation is that a comprehensive fee analysis should be conducted every five to seven years. This allows jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes, such as staffing levels and merit increases, and process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements. Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further detail on each of these mechanisms:
• COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases are not tied to merit or seniority but rather meant to offset rising costs associated with housing, gas, and other livability factors.

Sometimes these factors vary depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally, these factors are around two or three percent annually. • CPI / ECI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index or Employment Cost Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45
The City of Brisbane already utilizes a CPI factor, and it should continue to do so to ensure that fees are increased in alignment with cost increases.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the costs associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources.

Development of cost recovery policies and procedures will ensure that current and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits of developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost recovery.

TYPICAL COST RECOVERY
The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery ranges. The following table outlines cost recovery ranges by major service area.

TABLE 20: TYPICAL COST RECOVERY RANGES BY MAJOR SERVICE AREA Service Areas Typical Cost Recovery Ranges
Building 80-100%
Planning 50-80%
The following graph depicts how Brisbane compares to industry cost recovery range standards.

Building & Planning are both below the typical recovery range.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46

DEVELOPMENT OF COST RECOVERY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The City should review the current cost recovery levels and adopt a formal policy regarding cost recovery.

This policy can be general in nature and can apply broadly to the City as a whole or to each department and division specifically. A department-specific cost recovery policy would allow the City to better control the cost recovery associated with different types of services being provided and the community benefit received.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of Brisbane, Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified six municipalities to be included in the comparative survey for departments other than Parks and Recreation: Burlingame, Daly City, Emeryville, Millbrae, San Bruno, and South San Francisco. For Parks and Recreation, the City identified eight municipalities to be included in the comparative survey: Belmont, Burlingame, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Carlos, San Francisco, San Mateo, and South San Francisco. The project team then reviewed public documents (i.e., agenda items, staff reports, budgets, fee schedules, and ordinances) and or contacted jurisdictions to get comparative information.

While this full report provides the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to benchmark themselves against other comparable jurisdictions to understand the local “rates” for comparable services. This type of comparative analysis allows for the City to assess what types of changes in fee levels their community can bear. However, benchmarking does not provide adequate information regarding the relationship of other jurisdictions’ costs to their fees (i.e., policy decisions to subsidize, cost recovery goals, etc.). To contextualize this portion of the analysis, the project team provided economic and recency factors for the comparable jurisdictions.

The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated costs for various permits issued or services provided by the City.

ECONOMIC FACTORS
To provide additional context to the comparative survey information, the project team collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population, budget, and workforce size. These factors can impact how and when fees are administered, as a jurisdiction with a smaller population may choose to not charge a fee, or a smaller workforce size may inhibit their ability to administer a fee. The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to largest for each of these economic factors:

TABLE 21: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY POPULATION
Jurisdiction Population6
Brisbane 4,676
Emeryville 13,471
Millbrae 23,164
Burlingame 31,552
San Bruno 42,631
South San Francisco 65,397
6 California Finance estimates as of 1/1/2024 were used to determine each jurisdiction’s population.

APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48
Jurisdiction Population6
Daly City 102,155
TABLE 22: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY CITYWIDE TOTAL BUDGET Jurisdiction FY25-26 Budget7
Brisbane $28,599,443
Millbrae $40,496,262
San Bruno $68,775,416
Burlingame $81,032,875
Daly City $125,510,727
Emeryville $142,131,800
South San Francisco $152,532,413
TABLE 23: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY FTE
Jurisdiction FY25-26 Authorized FTE
Millbrae 105.75
Brisbane 145.00
Emeryville 174.61
San Bruno 287.00
Burlingame 327.4
Daly City 487.00
South San Francisco 643.81
When compared to the surveyed jurisdictions, the City of Brisbane ranks at the bottom in terms of population and budget and ranks as the second lowest when it comes to staffing.

RECENCY FACTOR
While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when paralleling Brisbane’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider are when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive analysis was undertaken. It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted recent fee studies, their fees are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The comparative results only show the adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdiction, not necessarily the full cost associated with the comparable service.

The following tables detail when each surveyed jurisdiction last conducted a fee analysis and when they last updated their fee schedule:

TABLE 24: LAST FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
Jurisdiction Response
Burlingame 2025
Daly City 2025
7 To ensure appropriate comparisons, full operating budget (all funds) has been used for all jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49
Jurisdiction Response
Emeryville 2025
Millbrae 2025
San Bruno 2025
South San Francisco 2025
TABLE 25: LAST FEE STUDY CONDUCTED
Jurisdiction Response
Burlingame 2024
Daly City 2022
Emeryville N/A
Millbrae 2017
San Bruno 2020
South San Francisco 2023
Most of the surveyed jurisdictions have published an updated fee schedule within the last year.

Additionally, all the jurisdictions except for Emeryville and Millbrae have conducted a fee study within the last five years.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS
Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for service:
• Cost Recovery Factors: Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on the actual cost of providing services, as various policy decisions may subsidize services. • Fee Variance Factors: A fee with the same name may encompass different types of services or activities across jurisdictions. Variability may stem from differences in service delivery models (e.g., in-house vs. contracted), the scope of work included under the fee, and staffing configurations, all of which can influence how indirect and overhead costs are allocated.

In addition to the issues noted, market surveys can also run the risk of creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because each jurisdiction is different, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the information contained in the market comparison of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool, rather than the primary method for determining an acceptable price point for services.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY RESULTS
As part of this study, the project team conducted a survey of how the City’s current user fees and calculated full cost compare to other identified jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related services provided by the City versus the surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50

REROOFING PERMIT
Building currently charges a fee of $105 for a plan check and inspection of a Reroofing Permit that is 2,000 sq. ft. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $166. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current and full cost fees are the lowest when compared to the jurisdictional average of $507.

The City’s full cost is most comparable to Emeryville’s fee of $200.

WATER HEATER: RESIDENTIAL
Building currently charges for a Water Heater: Residential as a valuation, which would be roughly $105.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $193. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51
Brisbane’s current fee is the second lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $105, as this fee is valuation-based. However, its full cost of $193 is above the jurisdictional average of $133. The calculated full cost is the same as Emeryville’s fee of $193.

SFR PLAN CHECK & PERMIT: NEW
Building currently charges a fee of $2,220 for a plan check and inspection of an SFR Plan Check & Permit: New - Valued at $450,000 (2,000 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $2,464. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $2,220. However, its full cost of $2,464 is below the jurisdictional average of $9,366. The City’s current fee and full cost is most similar to Emeryville’s fee of $3,600.

SFR PLAN CHECK & PERMIT: ADDITION
Building currently charges a fee of $235 for a plan check and inspection of an SFR Plan Check & Permit:

Addition - Valued at $5,000 (150 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $547. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52
Brisbane’s current fee is the second lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $235. However, its full cost of $547 is below the jurisdictional average of $837. The City’s current fee and full cost are most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $327.

COMMERCIAL PLAN CHECK & PERMIT: NEW
Building currently charges a fee of $16,960 for a plan check and inspection of a Commercial Plan Check & Permit: New - Valued at $3,000,000 (20,000 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $22,100. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $16,960. However, its full cost of $22,100 is below the jurisdictional average of $49,242. The City’s current fee and full cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $22,629.

COMMERCIAL PLAN CHECK & PERMIT: TI
Building currently charges a fee of $2,979 for a plan check and inspection of a Commercial Plan Check & Permit: TI - Valued at $200,000 (1,200 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53
cost of this service to be $4,930. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $2,979. However, its full cost of $4,930 is below the jurisdictional average of $6,820. The City’s current fee and full cost is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $5,357.

SPRINKLER SYSTEM: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Fire currently charges a fee of $1,300 for a plan check and inspection of a Sprinkler System: Commercial - New - 5,000 sq. ft. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,668. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is in on the higher end when compared to other jurisdictions at $1,300. However, its full cost of $1,668 is above the jurisdictional average of $1,111. The City’s current fee is most comparable to San Bruno’s fee of $1,128, whereas the calculated full cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $1,844.