CITY OF COMMERCE
Development Services
User Fee Study
i User Fee Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ i Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 User Fee Background .............................................................................................................................. 2 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2 California User Fee History .......................................................................................................................... 2 Additional Policy Considerations ................................................................................................................. 3 Study Objective....................................................................................................................................... 4 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Aim of the Report ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Approach and Methodology ........................................................................................................ 6 Conceptual Approach ................................................................................................................................... 6 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates ........................................................................................................................ 6 Summary Steps of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 7 Allowable Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Quality Control/Quality Assurance .............................................................................................................. 8 Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees............................................................................. 8 City Staff Contributions ................................................................................................................................ 9 Commerce User Fees ............................................................................................................................ 10 Cost Recovery............................................................................................................................................. 10 Subsidization .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Impact on Demand (Elasticity) ................................................................................................................... 11 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Development Services .......................................................................................................................... 12 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Public Works ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered ............................................................................. 14 Appendix B – Fully Burdened Hourly Rates ............................................................................................ 15 Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis .................................................................................................... 16 1 User Fee Study
Executive Summary
The City of Commerce engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees. Due to the complexity and the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities. This report and the appendices herein identifies 100% full cost recovery for City services and the recommended level of recovery as determined through discussion with departmental staff.
The reality of the local government fee environment is that significant increases to achieve 100% cost recovery can often not be feasible, desirable, or appropriate depending on policy direction —particularly in a single year. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery.
2 User Fee Study
User Fee Background
Background
As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments adopt user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole. As cities struggle to maintain levels of service and variability of demand, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and have implemented cost-recovery targets. To the extent that governments use general tax monies to provide individuals with private benefits, and not require them to pay the full cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is limiting funds that may be available to provide other community-wide benefits. In effect, the government is using community funds to pay for private benefit. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have more control over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute.
Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218, and the California Code of Regulations. The Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either ordinance or resolution, and that any fees in excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be approved by a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting because the charge would be considered a tax and not a fee.
California User Fee History
Before Proposition 13, California cities were less concerned with potential subsidies and recovering the cost of their services from individual fee payers. In times of fiscal shortages, cities simply raised property taxes, which funded everything from police and recreation to development-related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
Proposition 13 established the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Since the public continues to resist efforts to raise local government taxes, cities have little control and very few successful options for new revenues. Compounding this limitation, the State of California took a series of actions in the 1990’s and 2000’s to improve the State’s fiscal situation—at the expense of local governments. As an example, in 2004-05, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (“ERAF”) take-away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees have severely reduced local tax revenues.
In addition, on November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the “Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative”, which is aimed at defining “regulatory fees” as a special tax rather than a fee, thus requiring approval by two-thirds vote of local voters. These regulatory fees are typically intended to mitigate the societal and environmental impacts of a business or person’s activities. Proposition 26 contains seven categories of exceptions. The vast majority of fees that cities would seek to adopt will most likely fall into one or more of these exemptions.
3 User Fee Study
Additional Policy Considerations
The recent trend for municipalities is to update their fee schedules to reflect the actual costs of certain public services primarily benefitting users. User Fees recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes.
In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and administering user services, it is common for local governments to recover support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to a local government’s central service departments that are properly allocable to the local government’s operating departments. Central services support cost allocations were incorporated using the resulting indirect overhead percentages determined through the Cost Allocation Plan. This plan was developed prior to the User Fee study to determine the burden placed upon central services by the operating departments in order to allocate a proportionate share of central service cost.
As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is that it has the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, it is recommended that the City include an inflationary factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule to allow the City Council, by resolution, to annually increase or decrease the fees.
The City may employ many different inflationary factors. The most commonly used inflator is some form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as it is widely well known and accepted. A similar inflator is the implicit price deflator for GDP, which is much like the CPI except that while the CPI is based on the same “basket” of goods and services every year, the price deflators’ “basket” can change year to year. Since the primary factor for the cost of a City’s services is usually the costs of the personnel involved, tying an inflationary factor that connects more directly to the personnel costs can be suitable if there is a clear method, or current practice of obtaining said factor.
Each City should use an inflator that they believe works the best for their specific situation and needs. It is also recommended that the City perform this internal review annually with a comprehensive review of services and fees performed every three to five years, which would include adding or removing fees for any new or eliminated programs/services.
4 User Fee Study
Study Objective
As the City of Commerce seeks to efficiently manage limited resources and adequately respond to increased service demands, it needs a variety of tools. These tools provide assurance that the City has the best information and the best resources available to make sound decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and meet the needs of the City administration and its constituency. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognizes that a User Fee Study is a very cost-effective way to understand the total cost of services and identify potential fee deficiencies. Essentially, a User Fee is a payment for a requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits an individual or group.
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is based on the full cost of providing City services, including direct salaries and benefits of City staff, direct departmental costs, and indirect costs from central service support. This study determines the full cost recovery fee for the City to provide each service; however, each fee is set at the City’s discretion, up to 100% of the total cost, as specified in this report.
The principle goal of the study was to help the City determine the full cost of the services that the City provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including:
• Developing a rational basis for setting fees
• Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable, of each fee in the model • Enhancing fairness and equity
• Ensuring compliance with State law
• Developing an updatable and comprehensive list of fees • Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals
The study results will help the City better understand its true costs of providing services and may serve as a basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate fees, if any, to collect from individuals and organizations that require individualized services from the City.
Scope of the Study
The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the Planning related user fees charged by the following Commerce departments and fee groups:
• Development Services
• Public Works
The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels. 5 User Fee Study
Aim of the Report
The User Fee Study focused on the cost of City services, as City staff currently provides them at existing, known, or reasonably anticipated service and staff levels. This report provides a summary of the study results, and a general description of the approach and methods Willdan and City staff used to determine the recommended fee schedule. The report is not intended to document all of the numerous discussions throughout the process, nor is it intended to provide influential dissertation on the qualities of the utilized tools, techniques, or other approaches.
6 User Fee Study
Project Approach and Methodology
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determine the “reasonable cost” of each service provided by the City for which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City’s fee, but it serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected.
The standard fee limitation established in California law for property-related (non-discretionary) fees is the “estimated, reasonable cost” principle. In order to maintain compliance with the letter and spirit of this standard, every component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures, time estimates, and improvement valuation clearly indicates reliance upon estimates for some data.
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is primarily based on the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (FBHRs) that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing services. The FBHRs include not only personnel salary and benefits, but also any costs that are reasonably ascribable to personnel. The cost elements that are included in the calculation of fully burdened rates are:
• Salaries & benefits of personnel involved
• Operating costs applicable to fee operations
• Internal Service Costs charged to each department
• Indirect City-wide overhead costs calculated through the Cost Allocation Plan An important factor in determining the fully burdened rate is in the calculation of productive hours for personnel. This calculation takes the available workable hours in a year of 2,080 and adjusts this figure to account for calculated or anticipated hours’ employees are involved in non-billable activities such as paid vacation, sick leave, emergency leave, holidays, and other considerations as necessary. Dividing the full cost by the number of productive hours provides the FBHR.
The FBHRs are then used in conjunction with time estimates, when appropriate, to calculate a fees' cost based on the personnel and the amount of their time that is involved in providing each service. 7 User Fee Study
Summary Steps of the Study
The methodology to evaluate most User Fee levels is straightforward and simple in concept. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:
Allowable Costs
This report identifies three types of costs that, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a service (Appendix A). Costs are defined as direct labor, including salary and benefits, departmental overhead costs, and the City’s central services
overhead, where departmental and central
service overhead costs constitute support
costs. These cost types are defined as follows:
• Direct Labor (Personnel Costs): The
costs related to staff salaries for time
spent directly on fee-related services.
• Departmental Overhead: A
proportional allocation of
departmental overhead costs,
including operation costs such as
supplies and materials that are
necessary for the department to
function.
• Central Services Overhead: These
costs, detailed in the City’s Cost Allocation Plan, represent services provided by those Central Services Departments whose primary function is to support other City departments.
Data Analysis
Department Interviews
Time Estimates
Labor Costs
Cost Allocation Plan
Building Cost Layers
Direct Services
Indirect Services
Department Overhead
City-Wide Overhead
Set Fees
Define the Full Cost of
Services
Set Cost Recovery Policy
8 User Fee Study
Methodology
The two methods of analysis for calculating fees used in this report are the:
Case Study Method (Standard Unit Cost Build-Up Approach): This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. This analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements do not vary dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and cost requirements are easy to identify at the project’s outset. Further, the method is effective in instances when a staff member from one department assists on an application, service or permit for another department on an as-needed basis. Costs are estimated based upon interviews with City staff regarding the time typically spent on tasks, a review of available records, and a time and materials analysis.
Programmatic Approach: The standard Case Study approach relies upon the detailed analysis of specific time estimates, salaries and benefits, expenditures, and overhead costs. In many instances, the underlying data are not available or vary widely, leaving a standard unit cost build-up approach impractical. In addition, market factors and policy concerns (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence fee levels more than other types of services. With these general constraints, and to maximize the utility of this analysis, Willdan employed different methodologies where appropriate to fit a programs’ needs and goals.
Quality Control/Quality Assurance
All study components are interrelated, thus flawed data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to be inconsistent and unsound. The elements of our Quality Control process for User Fee calculations include:
• Involvement of knowledgeable City staff
• Clear instructions and guidance to City staff
• Reasonableness tests and validation
• Normalcy/expectation ranges
• FTE balancing
• Internal and external reviews
• Cross-checking
Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees
Within the fee tables in Appendix C, the differences identified between the full costs calculated through the study and the fee levels currently in effect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from a number of possible factors including:
• Previous fee levels may have been set at levels less than full cost intentionally, based on policy decisions
• Staffing levels and the positions that complete fee and service activity may vary from when the previous costs were calculated
• Personnel and materials costs could have increased at levels that differed from any inflationary factors used to increase fees since the last study
9 User Fee Study
• Costs that this study has identified as part of the full cost of services may not have been accounted for in a previous study
o Departmental overhead and administration costs
o Indirect overhead from the Cost Allocation Plan
• Changes in processes and procedures within a department, or the city as a whole City Staff Contributions
As part of the study process, Willdan received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, which contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
• Budget and other cost data
• Staffing structures
• Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions • Direct and indirect work hours (billable/non-billable) • Time estimates to complete work tasks
• Frequency and current fee levels
• Review of draft results and other documentation
A User Fee Study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments— on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions from City staff were critical to this study. We would like to express our appreciation to the City and its staff for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation. 10 User Fee Study
Commerce User Fees
Cost Recovery
The cost recovery models, by department/division fee type, are presented in detail in Appendix C. Full cost recovery is determined by summing the estimated amount of time each position (in increments of minutes or hours) spends to render a service. Time estimates for each service rendered were predominately determined by Willdan and City Staff through a time and materials survey conducted for each department/division fee included in the study. The resulting cost recovery amount represents the total cost of providing each service. The City’s current fee being charged for each service, if applicable, is provided in this section, as well, for reference.
It is important to note that the time and materials survey used to determine the amount of time each employee spends assisting in the provision of the services listed on the fee schedule is essential in identifying the total cost of providing each service. Specifically, in providing services, a number of employees are often involved in various aspects of the process, spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service.
The principle goal of this study was to identify the cost of City services, to provide information to help the City make informed decisions regarding the actual fee levels and charges. The responsibility to determine the final fee levels is a complicated task. City staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those same issues and more in making the final decisions.
City staff assumes the responsibility to develop specific fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since many of the considerations are based on the unique characteristics of the City of Commerce, and administrative and political discretion.
However, in setting the level of full cost recovery for each fee, one should consider whether the service solely benefits one end user or the general community.
Subsidization
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. The general standard is that individuals (or groups) whom receive a wholly private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that are simply public benefit should be funded entirely by the general fund’s tax dollars. Unfortunately, for the decision makers, many services fall into the range between these two extremes.
Further complicating the decision, opponents of fees often assert that the activities subject to the fees provide economic, cultural, “quality of life,” or other community benefits that exceed the costs to the City.
It is recommended the City consider such factors during its deliberations regarding appropriate fee levels.
Of course, subsidization can be an effective public policy tool, since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities (such as compliance inspections to ensure public safety) or allow some people to be able to afford to receive services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies can 11 User Fee Study
be an appropriate and justifiable action, such as to allow citizens to rightfully access services, without burdensome costs.
Despite the intent, it is important for the City and public to understand that subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, typically the General Fund. Therefore, the general taxpayer will potentially help to fund private benefits, and/or other City services will not receive funds that are otherwise directed to cover subsidies.
Impact on Demand (Elasticity)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually curtail the demand for the services; whereas lower fees may spark an incentive to utilize the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is largely unknown. The Cost of Service Study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher or lower fees; nevertheless, the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels.
Summary
If the City’s principal goal of this study were to maximize revenues from user fees, Willdan would recommend setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in this study. However, we understand that revenue enhancement is not the only goal of a cost of service study, and sometimes full-cost recovery is not needed, desired, or appropriate. Other City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past experience, implementation issues, and other internal and external factors may influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In this case, the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and creation of a consistent and comprehensive fee schedule was the primary objective of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and identified the “recommended fee levels” for consideration by City Council. The attached appendices exhibit these unit fees individually.
The preceding sections provide background for each department or division and the results of this study’s analysis of their fees. For the full list of each fee’s analysis, refer to Appendix C of this report. 12 User Fee Study
Development Services
Staff support to Planning Commission and City Council at their meetings. Staff support to prepare reports and related documents for these meetings. Coordinate public hearings for conditional use permits, variances, and modification of standards. Review site plans and land divisions. Coordinate compliance with the Zoning and General Plan and provide periodic review and revision. Coordinate solid waste, hazardous waste, stormwater, and air quality environmental management and recycling services. Continue to administer the implementation of integrated solid waste management programs contained in the City's SRRE, WDRs, NPDES, grants, public education, legislative research, and implementation of new environmental programs.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the Planning related services and programs associated with Development Services. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Development Services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that the current fees in place provide very large subsidies. Due to the suggested fee levels in Appendix C, the average fee increase is 59%. The suggested fees would still maintain a large subsidy for many services, but provide for more reasonable cost recovery, and help to mitigate rate shock or elasticity effects. As a result, there would be an increase to 36 fees, a decrease to 1 fee, 2 fees would remain as currently set and 1 new fee will be added.
13 User Fee Study
Public Works
Public Works is responsible for supervising the collection of residential trash (through contractual agreement) and for maintenance of streets, street lights, sewers, storm drains, and the City-owned trees and water system.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the Planning related services and programs associated with the Public Works Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of the Planning related portion of the Public Works department’s fees relied upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis showed that current services are being provided well below the cost of providing them.
Suggested fee levels were determined to increase cost recovery while mitigating fee increase impacts on demand. Due to the suggested fee levels in Appendix C, the average fee increase would be 50%, and the proposed subsidy levels are also detailed per service. As a result, there would be an increase to 4 fees, and 1 new fee will be added.
14 User Fee Study
Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered
Below are the total allowable costs that may be recovered through User Fees; however, only a percentage of the total allowable cost is realized as staff not only works on services related to User Fees, but also works on an array of other City functions during the operational hours of the City. The amounts listed below will not reconcile to City budgets as costs that should not be included in overhead for personnel in the application of determining fully burdened hourly rates were excluded. Examples of these costs are capital, debt, monetary transfers, contract costs, and any other costs that is charged directly to the service requestor.
City of Commerce - User Fee
Indirect Cost Allocation Summary
Department
Salary and
Benefits Operating Costs
Direct
Overhead %
Indirect
Overhead %
Public Works and Development Services Admin 32,950 1,492,352 2.2% 10.0% Current Planning 9,450 505,551 1.9% 10.0%
Building Department 6,500 213,194 3.0% 10.0%
Street Maintenance 14,250 127,674 11.2% 10.0%
Tree Maintenance 11,895 135,879 8.8% 10.0%
Legal Services 715,000 - 0.0% 0.0%
Fire Protection 10,203,311 - 0.0% 10.0%
Law Enforcement 7,277,340 - 0.0% 10.0%
Code Enforcement 17,140 258,510 6.6% 10.0%
Finance Administration 14,400 569,773 2.5% 0.0%
15 User Fee Study
Appendix B – Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Below are fully burdened hourly rates of staff positions that provide for the services detailed in Appendix C. The FBHRs were used to determine the full cost of each service. They include the salary and benefit costs for each position as well as all applicable overhead amounts for each position. For positions in central service departments, such as the City Clerk and Finance, what is shown is the salary and benefit rate only, as the overhead of central service departments is recovered through the cost allocation plan. When a central service department position works on a fee or project in the purview of an operating department, the overhead rates of the operating department (shown in Appendix A) will be applied to that central service positions’ salary and benefit rate for full cost recovery. For any user fee service request that is outside the scope of the fees detailed in Appendix C, or for services for which there is no fee currently set, the City can charge up to the full cost of the FBHR for personnel involved.
City of Commerce- User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully
Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates
Building Department Building - Building Official 193.49 Building Department Building - Plan Checker (LA County) 156.43 Code Enforcement Code - Code Enforcement 40.28
Code Enforcement Code - Code Enforcement Supervisor 94.19 Finance Administration Finance - Administrative Secretary 67.11 Finance Administration Finance - Office Specialist 26.20 Fire Protection Fire - Fire Inspector (LA County) 144.10 Law Enforcement Law - LA County Sheriff 144.10
Legal Services Legal - City Attorney 190.00
Current Planning Planning - Assistant Planner 61.12
Current Planning Planning - Associate Planner 100.17
Current Planning Planning - City Planner 122.24
Current Planning Planning - Deputy Director of Development Services 141.26 Public Works and Development Services Admin PWDS - Associate Engineer 97.78 Public Works and Development Services Admin PWDS - Consultant 123.67 Public Works and Development Services Admin PWDS - Deputy Director of Engineering Services 141.73 Public Works and Development Services Admin PWDS - Deputy Director of Operations 141.73 Public Works and Development Services Admin PWDS - Director of PWDS 175.80 Public Works and Development Services Admin PWDS - Office Specialist 59.62 Public Works and Development Services Admin PWDS - Public Safety & Community Services Director 172.39 Public Works and Development Services Admin PWDS - Senior Management Analyst 91.99 16 User Fee Study
Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis
The following tables provide the results of the analysis, resulting full cost recovery amount, and recommended fees. For fees in which the full cost, existing fee and suggested fee is listed as “NA”, the amount or percentage was not calculable based on cost data or variable fee structure. This is most common when either the current or the suggested fee includes a variable component that is not comparable on a one to one basis, a full cost was not calculated (for penalties and fines), or when there is not a current fee amount to compare against.
17 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Development Services
# Description Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % 50% Increase Fee Δ 1 General Plan Amendement $1,000.00 Each $6,363.70 6% $6,000.00 $5,000 2 Zone Change $1,000.00 Each $6,363.70 6% $6,000.00 $5,000 3 Zoning Ordinance Amendment $1,000.00 Each $6,080.08 1% $6,000.00 $5,0004 Zoning Clearance Fee $100.00 Each $446.87 10% $400.00 $3005 Parcel Map $2,000.00 Each $4,302.17 7% $4,000.00 $2,0006 Tract Map $2,000.00 Each $4,302.17 0% $4,300.00 $2,300 7 Lot Line Adjustment - Commercial $750.00 Each $3,223.06 7% $3,000.00 $2,250 8 Lot Line Adjustment - Residential $500.00 Each $2,878.27 65% $1,000.00 $500 9 Plot Plan/Site Plan Review - Non- Residential $750.00 Each $4,335.63 8% $4,000.00 $3,25010 Plot Plan/Site Plan Review - Residential Major $250.00 Each $4,479.73 11% $4,000.00 $3,75011 Plot Plan/Site Plan Review - Commercial Minor $250.00 Each $819.15 8% $750.00 $50012 Plot Plan/Site Plan Review - Residential Minor $250.00 Each $657.86 43% $375.00 $12513 Conditional Use Permit $1,000.00 Each $4,841.57 7% $4,500.00 $3,50014 Conditional Use Permit - Minor * (Residential) $1,000.00 Each $4,841.57 79% $1,000.00 $015 Conditional Use Permit Modification $1,000.00 Each $2,844.91 6% $2,674.59 $1,675 16 Variance - Non-Residential $1,000.00 Each $4,807.48 6% $4,500.00 $3,500 17 Variance - Residential $500.00 Each $2,850.51 74% $750.00 $250 18 Additional Variances $100.00 Each $2,769.04 1% $2,742.81 $2,643 19 Modification of Standards - Non-Residential $250.00 Each $2,171.35 8% $2,000.00 $1,75020 Modification of Standards - Residential $150.00 Each $892.80 75% $225.00 $7521 Landscape Plan Review/Plan Check New $424.79 0% $424.79 NA22 Home Occupation Permit $100.00 Each $996.03 85% $150.00 $50 23 Sign Permit Fee - Temporary Sign $25.00 Each $61.12 18% $50.00 $2524 Sign Permit Fee - Sign Permit $50.00 Each $239.51 16% $200.00 $15025 Temporary Use Permit $75.00 Each $597.48 16% $500.00 $425 26 Special Use Permit $75.00 Each $851.01 41% $500.00 $42527 Time Extensions $200.00 Each $192.87 1% $190.00 -$1028 Appeals of Planning Commission Decision - NonRes 100% of org fee Cost of Application NA NA $0 29 Appeals of Planning Commission Decision - Res 100% of org fee Cost of Application NA NA $030 Street of Alley vacation $1,000.00 Each $2,345.48 2% $2,300.00 $1,300 31 Relocation of Structure $500.00 Each $1,806.16 72% $500.00 $0 $5,000 deposit to start
Fee Schedule
Notes$5,000 deposit to start$5,000 deposit to start4 or Less5 or More$2,500 deposit to start$5,000 deposit to start$5,000 deposit to start$5,000 deposit to start$5,000 deposit to start 18 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Development Services
# Description Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % 50% Increase Fee Δ Environmental Review
32 EIR Review $750.00 Each If Service Agreement is required , Consultant's Cost Plus 25% $7,426.82 0% $7,426.82 $6,677 33 Categorical Exemption $250.00 Each $424.79 6% $400.00 $15034 Negitive Declaration $500.00 Each If Service Agreement is required , Consultant's Cost Plus 25% $5,884.77 0% $5,884.77 $5,38535 Mitigated Negitive Declaration $500.00 Each If Service Agreement is required , Consultant's Cost Plus 25% $5,884.77 0% $5,884.77 $5,38536 Zoning Verification Letter $100.00 Each Per Parcel $315.12 5% $300.00 $20037 Zoninig Maps - Small $5.00 Each $15.28 2% $15.00 $10 38 Zoning Maps - Large $25.00 Each $30.56 2% $30.00 $539 Document Handling Fee $25.00 Each $2,658.93 0% $2,658.93 $2,63440 Negative Declaration $1,250.00 Each $1,592.96 0% $1,592.96 $343 Recommended New Fees
41 Prelimenary Review/Design Review New each $1,592.96 100% NA 42 Public Hearing Publication Fee New each $449.17 Variable NA43 Spacific Plan Amendmentn New each $6,363.70 100% NA44 Development Agreement New each $6,363.70 Variable NA45 County Recorders fee New each $0.00 NA NA 46 Fish and Game fee New each $0.00 NA NAFee Schedule
Notes
19 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Public Works
# Description Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 1 Major Project Encroachment Permit $1,500.00 One City block or more unless determined by Permit Engineer $3,076.55 27% $2,250.00 $750 2 Minor Project Encroachment Permit $500.00 Any Project less than one City block $1,538.28 51% $750.00 $2503 Major Project Encroachment Construction Inspection Fee $1,000.00 One City block or more unless determined by Permit Engineer $3,402.23 56% $1,500.00 $500 4 Minor Project Encroachment Construction Inspection Fee $400.00 Any Project less than one City block $2,065.69 71% $600.00 $200 Other Fees
5 Damage to City Property New NA NA
Actual Cost + 10% Admin Fee
NA
NOTE: Definition of Major and MinorMajor = any project greater than 2 City blocksMinor = any project less thank or equal to 1 City block Fees
Cost Allocation Plan
March 8, 2018
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92590-4856
800.755.6864 | 951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com