Rules & Legislation Committee
September 15, 2022

INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: Edward D. Reiskin FROM: William A. Gilchrist, Director City Administrator Planning and Building Department

SUBJECT: City’s Response to the 2021-22 DATE: September 28, 2022 Alameda County Grand Jury Report
on Building Plan Check Procedures
_____________ ___

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Below please find the response to the 2021-2022 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Report (“Report”) regarding building plan check procedures from the City of Oakland (“City”). The Planning and Building Department (“PBD” or “Department”) would like to thank the Grand Jury for its review and recommendations. The Department welcomes the constructive feedback on its building plan check procedures and appreciates the opportunity to explore improvements to its permit processing and respond to the recommendations made in the Report.

RESPONSE TO FINDINGS

Grand Jury Finding 22-56: The system in place for authorizing, assigning, checking, and verifying reported overtime for expedited plan checks in Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building is ineffective.

City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding.

City Explanation: The Planning and Building Department uses an Overtime Plan Check Request Form submitted by the applicant to authorize to begin the overtime review process. The Process Coordinator receives the overtime request form, then seeks a Plan Checker who is available to work overtime on that project since overtime is performed on a voluntary basis. The Plan Check supervisor is then requested to authorize the assignment after confirming the Plan Checker’s availability and current workload. On page 153 of the report, the Grand Jury notes that “given the solitary nature of the plan check work and the physical layout of the facility, managers are not typically positioned to directly observe the work of their team members.” However, Plan Checkers work within the scope of their expertise and require minimal direct supervision. The Plan Check supervisor verifies the overtime hours worked based on the scope and complexity of the work and affixes his signature on the Plan Checker’s Overtime Authorization Form, which accompanies the Plan Checker’s timesheet. This system allowed for the detection of overtime reporting irregularities by one individual whose actions were documented and ultimately reported by the Department to the City Auditor.

Grand Jury Finding 22-57: The extended vacancy of the [D]eputy [D]irector/[C]hief [B]uilding [O]fficial position in Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building contributes to the undermanagement of the expedited plan check service.

To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator
Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures
September 28, 2022

City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding.

City Explanation: The position is not vacant and is being filled by an Acting Chief Building Official since January 2021, during which time the City has conducted two recruitments for the Deputy Director/Chief Building Official, and a permanent selection is pending. Furthermore, the Chief Building Official does not assign overtime work, which is delegated in the manner described in response to “Finding 22-56”. The Grand Jury’s representation that the delegation of Bureau responsibility to an Acting Chief Building Official Status adversely affects the Expedited Plan Check service is uncorroborated.

Grand Jury Finding 22-58: The fees currently charged by Oakland for expedited service of plan checks are likely inconsistent with the requirements of Proposition 26.

City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding.

City Explanation: This finding is not informed or supported by a Cost Allocation Study. The City is currently contracted with a firm to update the 2015 Cost Allocation Study (Attachment A) that was done for Planning and Building Department fees. To determine reasonableness of a fee’s consistency with Proposition 26, the courts have examined fees collectively (i.e., among all payors), while avoiding demanding precision with respect to the benefit any individual fee payor receives. See Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz, 207 Cal. App. 4th 982, 997 (2012). As a matter of law, while permissible fees must be related to the overall cost of the governmental regulation, courts have held that fees are not finely calibrated to the precise benefit each individual fee payor might derive. (Id.) The Grand Jury’s Report, in general, and Grand Jury Finding 22-58, in particular, seems to suggest a different standard, which is contrary to law.

Grand Jury Finding 22-59: The plan check function in Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building does not actively monitor productivity within the plan check team and currently does not collect data on hours worked by project to enable this analysis.

City Response: The City disagrees partially with the finding.

City Explanation: The Department tracks the number of hours spent on a project submitted for Expedited (overtime) Plan Check within Accela, its permit tracking system, and it is recorded in the Overtime Authorization Form submitted to the payroll department as described in the response to “Finding 22-56”. The City does not track the number of hours spent on work performed during normal business hours, which is consistent with common practice among other local jurisdictions and with State law as cited in explanation of response to Grand Jury Finding 22-58. Moreover, if the City were to adopt such a process, then the City would need to confer with affected labor groups depending on the extent of the tracking to be implemented under this recommendation before its possible adoption.

Grand Jury Finding 22-60: Supply of plan checking resources in Oakland’s Department of Planning and building is not aligned with demand for those resources in part because there is no attempt to forecast anticipated supply and demand and provide decision makers with the information with sufficient lead time to address anticipated gaps.

To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator
Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures
September 28, 2022

City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding.

City Explanation: Starting in 2016, the Department procured On-Call Plan Check Services (“On- Call”) in direct response to a projected demand for inspection services, and began looking at pipeline trends for future needs. The Department works with the City’s Department of Human Resources Management (DHRM) to recruit and hire staff within the Plan Check Division to meet demand surges; however, the labor market is experiencing an unprecedented dearth in candidates to fill positions. Nonetheless, the Department was authorized to add 8.5 additional full time positions via the 2022-23 Mid-Cycle Budget Process in response to forecasted trends.

Grand Jury Finding 22-61: Exclusive reliance on internal resources for providing plan check services in Oakland’s Department of Planning and Building limits the ability of the Planning and Building Department to ensure service commitments to applicants are consistently achieved.

City Response: The City disagrees wholly with the finding.

City Explanation: As noted in the response to “Finding 22-60”, the City did procure On-Call Plan Check services starting in 2016 and utilizes those services when demand for Plan Check services exceeds staff capacity. Furthermore, the Department has expanded its On-Call capacity by entering into contract with five (5) firms in 2019 and has been utilizing those contracts accordingly.

RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 22-79: Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall integrate a comprehensive set of process controls to protect against the risk of fraud in the reporting of overtime.

City Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

City Explanation: This recommendation was already put in place in response to the Department’s own initiative after reporting the Plan Checker’s overtime. Plan Checkers are required to document their overtime hours on an Overtime Authorization Form to accompany their time sheets as described in response to “Finding 22-56”. On that form, they are instructed to provide the permit numbers for which overtime work was conducted, the number of overtime hours worked on that permit for the current pay period, and the total number of overtime hours worked thus far on that permit. This allows for the reconciliation of number of overtime hours charged to a project and number of hours reported to payroll. Overtime hours are implemented in increments that must first have prior approval by and may not be exceeded without prior approval by supervisor as also noted in response to “Recommendation 22-80”.

Recommendation 22-80: Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall establish and enforce a limit on the maximum annual number of hours of overtime for that can be worked by each plan checker.

City Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator
Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures
September 28, 2022

City Explanation: Per 5/12/2022 memorandum, PBD established Overtime Limits of 2 hours per weekday and 4 hours per weekend day with directions to report to supervisors whenever the possibility of exceeding those limits arises. In aggregate these weekly limits constitute an annual maximum, but the Department’s weekly review allows for more precise and regular management than an annual limit.

Recommendation 22-81: Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall establish a process for regularly reconciling Authorized Overtime, Paid Overtime, and Expediting Fees charged to applicants.

City Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

City Explanation: Please refer to the City’s explanation for “Finding 22-56.”

Recommendation 22-82: Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall fill the currently vacant post of Deputy Director/Chief Building Official.

City Response: This recommendation is in the process of being implemented.

City Explanation: This recommendation is inaccurately worded; the position is not vacant.

Presently, the position is filled on an acting basis consistent with standard procedures to ensure continuity over operational units at City Hall during recruitment. The City has been actively recruiting in a labor market that is severely constrained. This recommendation is in process; the City has been working with the Department of Human Resources Management and a third-party recruiter and a permanent selection is pending.

Recommendation 22-83: Once the [C]hief [B]uilding [O]fficial is hired, the [D]irector of Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall direct the [C]hief [B]uilding [O]fficial to provide updates to Planning and Building Department senior leadership on the state of the plan check function and progress on implementing these recommendations on a quarterly basis during their first year in the role.

City Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented and will be implemented with the hiring of the permanent Chief Building Official.

City Explanation: This recommendation will be implemented once the Deputy Director/Chief Building Official is hired. However, every pay period the Supervising Civil Engineer compiles all of the data on Overtime Plan Check functions and reports on such data to the Acting Building Official. Upon the hire of the Deputy Director/Chief Building Official, we will expand the analysis to include Plan Check done during normal business hours. We shall also include this data as part of a regular “Permit Stat” meeting, for the review of data related to the permitting operations.

Recommendation 22-84: In the next update to the Planning and Building Department cost study, Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall direct the independent consultants to address or respond to the cost estimate methodological issues identified in this report.

To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator
Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures
September 28, 2022

City Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be advanced to the independent consultants under this current update.

City Explanation: The Department will share the content of this report with the consultant that we have contracted with for the Cost Allocation/User Fee Study.

Recommendation 22-85: With the next amendment to Oakland’s Master Fee Schedule, the [C]ity [C]ouncil shall ensure the cost estimate methodological issues and the Proposition 26 compliance issues identified in this report have been addressed in fees set for expedited plan checks.

City Response: This recommendation will not be implemented.

City Explanation: The Grand Jury misapplies Proposition 26 in its Report. Under Proposition 26, the Expedited Plan Check fees at issue are exempt under Article XIIIC 1(e)(3) of the California Constitution, which excludes from the definition of “tax” a charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing permits.

This exception covers a wide range of local government regulatory fees, such as building permit fees, fire inspection fees, and other fees, such as those for Plan Check services. The local government is limited to charging its reasonable costs, which the local government may establish by a preponderance of evidence. Typically, this is done through justifying the fee through a fee study, which is then presented to City Council for legislative approval and adoption through approval of the Master Fee Schedule. The City Council adopts its Master Fee Schedule on an annual basis through an open and public legislative process.

To the extent the Grand Jury asserts the City’s fees are not reasonable, the City respectfully disagrees. To determine reasonableness of a fee, the courts will look at fees collectively (i.e., among all payors), while avoiding demanding precision with respect to the benefit any individual fee payor receives. See Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz, 207 Cal. App. 4th 982, 997 (2012). As a matter of law, while permissible fees must be related to the overall cost of the governmental regulation, courts have held that fees are not finely calibrated to the precise benefit each individual fee payor might derive. (Id.) The Grand Jury’s Report seems to suggest a different standard, through an hourly accounting, which is contrary to law.

Consistent with this standard, several jurisdictions we surveyed apply permit fees to specific classes of applicants generally, as supported by a fee study, and do not apply an hour-by-hour accounting for each project applicant.

An analysis and review of the Planning and Building Department's fees are currently underway, and the City Council will receive a Cost Allocation/User Fee Study ("Study") that will include recommendations on how those fees should be updated. It is the City's policy to have a well- documented and defensible cost of service plan that identifies rates that will be used to recover billable costs for services and to develop user fees that comply with Proposition 26, Proposition 218, and other applicable statutory requirements. The Study and recommendations to the To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator
Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures
September 28, 2022

Oakland City Council will be included as part of the Department's proposal as part of the fiscal year 2023-2025 Biennial Budget. Adoption of the recommendations and modifications to the City's Master Fee Schedule will require councilmanic action.

Recommendation 22-86: Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall extend the practice of tracking plan checker activity to all projects not just those for which expedited Service has been requested.

City Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.

City Explanation: This recommendation requires clarification. The Department is tracking Plan Check activity. As noted in the Department’s response to “Grand Jury Finding 22-59”, the Department currently collects Plan Check activity related to overtime work. As noted in the Department’s response to “Finding 22-56", the City has reached out to other local jurisdictions with similar classifications to find none of those polled keep track of hours spent on a project within normal working hours, which is explained further in response to “Finding 22-85". It is important to be clear that any change in practice may require extensive modification to the City’s financial system and permitting database, where the feasibility needs to be tested. Also, the City would need to confer with affected labor groups before adoption, depending on the extent of the recommendation.

Recommendation 22-87: Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall establish and maintain forecasting models for plan checker supply and demand.

City Response: This recommendation has been implemented to forecast inspection and plan review need based on application submittal. Depending on the available hiring lists and labor market, the staffing response may be constrained where the department must rely on On-Call services as they are available to provide services to bridge hiring constraints.

City Explanation: The issue is not whether the Department has been forecasting; the entire reason for hiring the On-Call plan review service was based on forecasted need from permit application volume and demand. Again, the recommendation needs to be more specific about what type of forecasting is being suggested. The Department processes permits across all development market segments and providing forecast growth projections across all those segments corresponding to a City budget cycle will need to be explored to assess the scope, efficacy, and cost-benefit of the recommendation. The Department can continue to look at sourced data (i.e. industry-furnished demand forecasting) in order to plan for and to procure necessary staff resources for Plan Check services. Of course, market forecasts are not infallible and whenever they fail to forecast recessions and downturns, they also lead to operational difficulties with staff retention.

Recommendation 22-88: Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall make use of forecast models of plan checker supply and demand in resource planning.

City Response: This recommendation has been implemented to address the demand.

To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator
Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures
September 28, 2022

City Explanation: A position has been budgeted in the Finance department that is intended to conduct demand forecasting related to local construction activity. The Department will use this data to analyze peak demands and to make staffing recommendations as part of the Biennial Budget Process. However, there is no forecast model of “plan checker supply.” How is one to forecast "plan checker supply” within that specific labor affinity with any confidence for its intended purpose? The operative issue is construction demand. If the intent of the recommendation is to adduce how many Plan Checkers may be entering the employment market, then we would welcome any dependable model that can be used for the purpose of hiring which the Grand Jury suggests that can realistically forecast how many Plan Checkers there will be looking for work at a given time. .

Recommendation 22-89: Oakland’s Planning and Building Department shall establish contracts with on-demand resources, such as third-party plan checkers, that can be utilized during periods in which internal resources are inadequate to meet applicant demand.

City Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

City Explanation: Please refer “Finding 22-61” for the City’s explanation. As noted there, the Department has been doing this well before the Grand Jury initiated its investigation.

ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORT

Additional Item 1: On page 149, the Grand Jury states, “Perhaps most troubling, management’s failure to adequately oversee the process enabled a systemic under-billing of large project developers that persisted over many years, costing Oakland millions of dollars in uncollected revenues.”

City Response: The City wholly disagrees with this characterization of billing.

City Explanation: Permit fees are assessed systematically and on a regular cycle per a Master Fee Schedule adopted by City Council. Upon adoption, the assessment of fees is standardly applied and is independent of an applicant’s status as a “large project developer.” There is only one standard. There is a current update underway of the Master Fee Schedule that is being undertaken independently as part of the PBD’s regular update cycle. It must be stated again a matter of law, while permissible fees must be related to the overall cost of the governmental regulation, courts have held that fees are not finely calibrated to the precise benefit each individual fee payor might derive. (Id.) The Grand Jury’s Report, in general, and Grand Jury Finding 22-58, in particular, seems to suggest a different standard, which is contrary to law.

The Department has also enacted policies and procedures to monitor and reconcile all staff time billing for expedited permits processing.

Additional Item 2: On page 154, the Grand Jury cites a May 14, 2017, San Francisco Chronicle article describing a plan checker’s timecards stating “he worked all 366 days of a leap year in 90-plus hour workweeks. He worked so much that he quadrupled his salary.” On page 155, the Grand Jury states, “The Grand Jury learned that this same plan checker throughout To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator
Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures
September 28, 2022

their career submitted internal reports of time worked for billing applicants that did not match the time records submitted for their own compensation.”

City Response: The City wholly disagrees with this characterization of PBD’s actions in responding to this situation.

City Explanation: Under new supervision that occurred prior to the Grand Jury engagement, this issue was identified, internally investigated, subsequently reported and submitted to the City Auditor for review. The City Auditor’s findings were ultimately inconclusive. Neither the City Auditor nor the Grand Jury has investigated his entire career with the City of Oakland, which spanned 40+ years. Of note, the subject Plan Checker retired from the City December 2020. In addition, and as previously noted, the Department has enacted policies and procedures to monitor and reconcile plan check staff overtime for expedited permit reviews.

Additional Item 3: On page 156, the Grand Jury states, “The Grand Jury learned the manager failed to take immediate steps to investigate, waiting at least several months before asking the engineer for an explanation and nearly a year before escalating to their supervisor.”

City Response: The City wholly disagrees with this characterization of PBD’s actions in responding to this situation.

City Explanation: As was explained to the Grand Jury, once the newly appointed supervising manager suspected inaccurate reporting of overtime by the subject Plan Checker, he immediately began his own investigation, which involved recording the overtime hours and the permit numbers reported on the Plan Checker’s Overtime Authorization Forms. This required several pay periods of data in order to compare past overtime hours reported on past permits.

On December 20, 2019, with this internal review completed, the Plan Checker was asked to explain his actions to which he responded he was instructed to submit overtime in this manner by a past supervisor approximately 25 years ago. Those alleged instructions, as depicted by the Plan Checker, entitled him to report in overtime hours the equivalent amount the applicant paid for overtime. Once this explanation was received, the matter was immediately reported to the Acting Chief Building Official, who reported to the Department Head immediately, who subsequently reported to the City Administrator and City Auditor. The City Auditor’s findings were ultimately inconclusive. As noted in previous responses, the Department enacted policies and procedures to monitor and reconcile all staff time billing for expedited permits processing.

Additional Item 4: On page 157, the Grand Jury states, “As of April 2022, the internal investigation into this discrepancy has been underway for over two years and the Grand Jury understands that the investigation remains open. Despite a written acknowledgement by the engineer of intentionally misreporting hours worked for an extended period, the Grand Jury was unable to find any evidence that disciplinary actions were taken or that efforts were made to recover funds that might have been owed to the city from applicants for work performed that went unbilled or for overtime compensation that might have been paid but not earned.”

City Response: The City wholly disagrees with this characterization of PBD’s actions in responding to this situation.

To: Edward D. Reiskin, City Administrator
Subject: City’s Response to the 2021-22 Alameda County Grand Jury Report on Building Plan Check Procedures
September 28, 2022

City Explanation: Although the Grand Jury acknowledges the investigations of the subject Plan Checker’s actions remained open at the time of its report submittal; however, it does not note that the employee is no longer with the City as of 2020. As noted in previous responses, the City Auditor was notified immediately of the employee’s actions once they were confirmed, and the employee was relieved of any further overtime assignments. Further, as noted in other responses, the City Auditor’s findings were ultimately inconclusive as to whether any billing policies were violated.

The Department is working with the City Attorney to determine appropriate next steps, particularly any further action concerning the employee.

Respectfully submitted,

William A. Gilchrist, Director
Planning and Building Department

Attachment (1):

Attachment A: 2015 Cost Allocation Study

Report on User Fee Study Findings

April 17, 2015

2251 Harvard Street, Suite 134
Sacramento, CA 95815
Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents Page
Executive Summary
Introduction 2
Scope and Objectives 2
Economic and Policy Considerations 3
Methodology 5
Study Findings 9

User Fee Summaries by Department:

Building Administration 15
Building Inspection 17
Building Plan Check 28
Code Enforcement 33
Planning 37
Engineering Services 46
Appendix A: Fee Comparison Analysis 54

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction

MGT of America (MGT) is pleased to present the City of Oakland (City) with this summary of findings for the user fee study.

It has been many years since the City conducted a comprehensive analysis of its development-related user fee services. The last time development- r
elated fees were adjusted was during FY 2010/11 to reflect a 3% growth in burdened personnel costs. The City is now interested in knowing the full cost of providing user fee-related services, and exploring the options of modifying current fees to better reflect Council priorities. In 2013, the City contracted with MGT to perform this cost analysis using fiscal year 2014 budget figures, staffing and operational information. MGT was also tasked with recommending fee adjustments for each department based on industry best-practices.

This report is the culmination of the past eighteen months of work between MGT and City management and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all management and staff who participated on this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to the success of this study.

Study Scope and Objectives

This study included a review of fee-for service activities within the following departments/divisions:

Building Administration
Building Inspection
Building Plan Check
Code Enforcement
Planning
Engineering Services

The study was performed under the general direction of the Planning and Building department with the participation of representatives from each fee section area. The primary goals of the study were to:

/xrhombus Define what it costs the city to provide various dev elopment fee-related services.

/xrhombus Recommend fee adjustments based on industry best pra ctices, practices of comparable agencies and MGT’s professional opinion.

/xrhombus Develop revenue projections based on recommended inc reases (or decreases) to fees.

/xrhombus Compile information regarding fees charged by the fo llowing comparable cities:

San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Berkeley, San Jose and Walnut Creek. /xrhombus Provide user fee models and templates to City staff enabling staff to update the study results in future years and incorporate new fees as they occur. The industry standard is to conduct a comprehensive review of fees every three to five years and make annual adjustments based on an inflation index. However, given the increasing cost of public sector employee benefits, agencies may incorporate those cost increases into the annual fee adjustments.

The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee adjustments and the resulting impact on City revenues.

The following is a list of legal, economic and policy issues that governmental agencies typically take into consideration when determining cost recovery levels.

/xrhombus State Law
– In California user fees are limited to the “estimated reasonable cost of providing a service” by Government Code section 66014(a) and other supplementary legislation. Proposition 26 was approved by California voters in November of 2010 and clarified which charges are considered user fees and which are considered taxes. The significance of this distinction is that user fees may be raised by Council action up to the limit of actual cost, whereas taxes may not be increased without a majority vote of the public. None of the fee adjustments recommended by MGT are considered taxes per Proposition 26 guidelines. It should be noted that fees charged for the use of government property are exempt from Proposition 26. These include fees for parks and facility rentals as well as green fees, cart and other equipment rental fees for golf services. All of these fees may be set at any price the market will bear. /xrhombus Economic barriers
- It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits lower income groups to use services that they might not otherwise be able to afford.

/xrhombus Community benefit - If a user fee service benefits the community as a whole to some extent, it is appropriate to subsidize a portion of the fee.

/xrhombus Private benefit – If a user fee primarily benefits the fee payer, the fee is typically set at, or close to 100% full cost recovery. Development- related fees generally fall into this category, however exceptions are sometimes made for services such as appeal fees or fees charged exclusively to residential applicants.

/xrhombus Service driver - In conjunction with the third point above, the issue of who is the service recipient versus the service driver should also be considered. For example, code enforcement activities benefit the community as a whole, but the service is driven by the individual or business owner that violates city code.

/xrhombus Managing demand
- Elasticity of demand is a factor in pricing certain city services; increasing the price may result in a reduction of demand for those services, and vice versa. However, for most fees studied within the report, demand is highly inelastic.

/xrhombus Incentives – Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as water heater permitting or photo-voltaic installations.

/xrhombus Disincentives – Penalties can be instituted to discourage undesirable behavior. Examples include fines for constructing without a building permit.

The flow chart below helps illustrate the economic and policy considerations listed above.

Who
Benefits
Public
Mostly taxes
& some fees
Youth sports
Private
Private / Public
Public / Private
Type of
Service
Individual benefit only
Primarily the individual
with some community-
wide benefits
Primarily the individual
with some community
benefits
Community Police patrol services
Example
Services
Mostly fees
& some taxes
100% fees
100% taxes
Tax vs. Fees
Policy
Development services
Code enforcement
services

DECISION-MAKING FLOW CHART

Methodology

The standard approach for analyzing the cost of providing fee-related services is commonly referred to as a “bottom up” approach. The bottom up approach was used to analyze all user fees. A general description of the “bottom up” approach is as follows:

1. Identify all direct staff time spent on the fee related activity or service MGT conducted a series of meetings with staff from Building Administration, Building Inspection, Building Plan Check, Code Enforcement, Engineering and Planning to identify every employee, by classification, who performs work directly in support of a fee related service. Direct staff

costs are incurred by employees who are “on the front line” and most visible to the customers (e.g. inspectors, counter staff, plan reviewers, etc.). Once all direct staff were identified, departments estimated how much time those employees spend, on average, working on each particular fee service.

Developing time estimates for fee related services can be challenging and departments should be commended for the time and effort they put into this. Although MGT provided departments with templates and other tools to assist them in developing average or “typical” time estimates, these calculations were necessarily developed by the subject matter experts in each operating department.

2. Calculate direct cost of the staff time for each fee using productive hourly rates Productive hourly rates are used to support full cost recovery. A full-time Oakland employee typically has 1,950 paid hours per year (37.5 hours x 52 weeks). However, cost studies reduce this number to account for non-productive hours (sick leave, vacation, holidays, training, meetings, etc.). MGT calculated the productive hourly rate for each classification based on the salary and benefit information provided by the City and an analysis of annual productive hours by classification.

3. Determine any other operational costs (i.e. other than personnel costs) that can readily be traced to a specific fee-related service as a direct cost
Professional services contracts are an example of an expense that can often be traced to a specific service or program.

4. Determine indirect or “overhead” costs
Generally there are two types of indirect costs: departmental and citywide overhead. These indirect costs are allocated across user fee services in order to capture the full cost of providing the service. If a department performs non-fee related services, a commensurate amount of indirect cost is segregated and not allocated to the fee related services. /xrhombus Departmental overhead costs – these costs include ma nagers, supervisors and support staff as well as other operational costs, such as materials and supplies that are incurred for a common purpose and not readily assigned to a particular service or program. /xrhombus Citywide overhead costs – each department and fund w ithin the city receives an allocation of cost from the city’s various central service departments. Central service departments are those whose main function is to support other city departments and funds.

Such departments include the City Administrator, City Attorney, Personnel Resources, City Auditor, Finance and Management, and the Office of Communications and Information. The methods for allocating central service costs can vary but must demonstrate a causal relationship between the allocation methodology and the costs allocated to the operating department. The State Controller’s

Office guidelines stress the importance of allocating citywide overhead costs in a way that “equitably reflect the value of service” provided to the department receiving the service(s). In most cases, industry standards call for one of the following methodologies for allocating central services costs:

Number of full-time equivalent staff in the operating department Total operating budget, excluding debt and certain non-operating costs Actual or estimates of time spent in support of the operating department based on documented procedures

5. Compare total costs to the current fee schedule.

Once all direct, indirect and crossover costs are calculated, MGT compared the total cost for each fee-related service to the fee currently charged to the public. In most cases we found the total cost of providing a service exceeded the fee charged. In these instances, the fee can be increased to recover these subsidies. However, there were a number of services for which the total calculated cost was less than the fee charged. In these cases the fee must be lowered to comply with State law.

6. Annual volume figures are incorporated.

Up to this point we have calculated fee costs and revenues on a per-unit basis. By incorporating annual volume estimates provided by each department into the analysis, we extrapolate the per-unit results into annual cost and annual revenue information. This annualization of results accomplishes two primary benefits:
/xrhombus Management information: the annualized results give management an estimate of the fiscal impact of any fee adjustments. Because annual volume will change from one year to the next, these figures are estimates only. Actual revenue will depend on future demand level and collection rates, which for some services can be less than 100%. /xrhombus Cross checks and reasonableness tests: by annualizi ng the results we also annualize the time spent by staff on each service. These annualized results will surface any instances of over or under estimation of time. In these cases we review these results with staff and resolve any anomalies. All staff hours were identified to either fee or non-fee related services.

7. Recommend fee adjustments.

MGT provides fee adjustment recommendations based on industry best practices and practices of comparable agencies. Because most fees analyzed within this report are development-related, most recommendations are set at 100% cost recovery. Of course MGT’s recommendations are advisory in nature only – ultimately Council must decide what fee levels are appropriate for Oakland.

Study Findings

The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision-makers with the basic data needed to make informed pricing decisions. This report details the full cost of services and presents recommended fee adjustments and their fiscal impact. Recommendations are based on careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis, industry best practices and market comparisons.

The results of the study identified that overall, most sections recover much less than the actual cost of providing services. Accordingly, there is an opportunity to raise additional funds through fee adjustments. There are several possible reasons for the current subsidy levels:
/xrhombus/xrhombus
/xrhombus/xrhombus During the 2003 comprehensive fee analysis, Council may have intentionally subsidized certain services. Subsequently, even if these fees were adjusted annually to keep pace with increasing city costs, these fees would still be below actual cost. /xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus It is likely the City’s practice of adjusting fees a nnually via a CPI factor did not keep pace with actual governmental service costs. Over the past decade, government sector costs have outpaced general inflation. /xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus Many user fee related processes have changed over th e past decade. Often this is the result of increasing service-level demands by the general public. Also, the State has mandated many additional inspections and reviews that add to the City’s cost structure within the development-related departments. In fact, CALGreen Title 24 regulations recently became effective July 1st of this year. These more stringent energy regulations will require extra time by inspection and plan review staff. We recommend the City monitor and quantify the increased time requirement and factor this increase into future fee schedule adjustments.

Restructuring of fees. We found that several of the City’s fees could be more equitably charged via a different fee structure. We have noted these structure changes within the “Department Highlights” section beginning on page 11.

Comparison analysis. A component of our analysis included a survey of user fees charged by neighboring cities. This survey gives City management a picture of the market environment for city services. This survey is imprecise in that a fee with the same name may involve slightly different services among the various cities surveyed. Some cities lump several services into one fee category, whereas other cities break fees down into a high level of specificity.

Accordingly the purpose of his comparison analysis is to impart a sense of how Oakland’s fees levels compare with comparable jurisdictions. The comparison analysis is provided in Appendix A.

The exhibit on the following page displays the summary of costs and revenues for each section analyzed:

Costs, UserCosts, UserCosts, UserCosts, User
IncreasedIncreased IncreasedIncreased
Department/DivisionDepartment/DivisionDepartment/DivisionDepartment/Division Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A) Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )
Revenue (E)Revenue (E)Revenue (E)Revenue (E)
Building AdministrationBuilding AdministrationBuilding AdministrationBuilding Administration $2,374,519 $2,374,931 100% ($412) $2,374,519 100% ($412) Building InspectionBuilding InspectionBuilding InspectionBuilding Inspection11 11 $4,196,386 $1,482,544 35% $2,713,842 $4,196,285 100% $2,713,741 Building Plan CheckBuilding Plan CheckBuilding Plan CheckBuilding Plan Check $10,531,103 $6,911,668 66% $3,619,435 $10,531,103 100% $3,619,435 Code EnforcementCode EnforcementCode EnforcementCode Enforcement $2,362,162 $1,582,076 67% $780,086 $2,362,162 100% $780,086 PlanningPlanning PlanningPlanning $1,897,671 $1,571,257 83% $326,414 $1,897,671 100% $326,414 Engineering ServicesEngineering ServicesEngineering ServicesEngineering Services - Building Services - Building Services - Building Services - Building Services $560,656 $457,018 82% $103,638 $560,307 100% $103,289 Sub Total:Sub Total: Sub Total:Sub Total: $21,922,497 $14,379,494 66% $7,543,003 $21,922,047 100% $7,542,553 Engineering ServicesEngineering ServicesEngineering ServicesEngineering Services - Public Works - Public Works - Public Works - Public Works22 22 $2,199,454 $2,016,796 92% $182,658 $2,197,398 100% $180,602 Grand Total:Grand Total:Grand Total:Grand Total: $24,121,951 $16,396,290 68% $7,725,661 $24,119,445 100% $7,723,155 1) $1,326,724 of Building Inspection costs represent General Plan Update efforts. 2) As part of the proposed transfer of services from Building Services to Public Works, these revenues will transfer from Building Services to Public Works.

Revenue (B )Revenue (B )Revenue (B )Revenue (B )
Policy (D)Policy (D)Policy (D)Policy (D)
City of Oakland
User Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue Analysis CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendedRecommendedRecommendedRecommended CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
Cost RecoveryCost RecoveryCost RecoveryCost Recovery

Column A, User Fee Costs –– –– The full cost of providing fee related services to the public was $24,121,951.

Column B, Current Revenues –– –– Based on current individual fee levels, the City generates fee related revenues of $16.39 million and is experiencing a 68% cost recovery level. Within each department, cost recovery levels fluctuate significantly. Several of the fees analyzed are currently set above actual cost. These fees must be reduced to comply with State law. The analyses of individual fees are presented in subsequent sections of this report.

Column C, Subsidy –– –– Current fee levels recover 68% of full cost, leaving 32% or $7,725,661 to be funded by other funding sources. This represents a “window of opportunity” for the City to increase fees and revenues, with a corresponding decrease in the subsidization of services.

Column D, Recommend Recovery –– –– It is estimated that adoption of the recommended cost recovery policy would generate fee revenues of $24,119,445. This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to almost 100%.

Column E, Increased Revenue –– –– Increasing fees to the recommended levels would generate approximately $7,723,155 in additional revenue. This represents a 47% increase over revenue currently being collected for these activities by the City on an annual basis.

D
epartment Highlights

Building Administration –– ––

Approximately half of this sections fees are currently set above full cost, while the other half are set below full cost. However, the fees set above full cost have a high annual volume, so adjusting all fees to full cost levels would result in a small net revenue reduction.

Building Inspection
–– ––

The vast majority of Building Inspection fees are set below cost recovery levels. If all fees were adjusted to recommended cost recovery levels, net revenue would increase by $4,196,285 annually.

Fees #218 and 220, General Plan surcharges – these fees are currently set below full cost levels. The cost of maintaining the City’s long-range plans is $1,326,724 annually. This cost includes Strategic Planning staff, General Plan consultants, Specific Plan consultants and Area Plan consultants. Currently the surcharge is applied against new construction building permit valuation and recovers only a small portion of the $1,326,724 cost. The City’s General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1998. A comprehensive update is planned for 2017. Below we present three options for the General Plan surcharge:

• Proposed GP Fee: increase the existing surcharge to full cost recovery levels. This option would increase the current fee from 0.10% of construction valuation to 0.43% of construction valuation. For a $250,000 single family home, the fee would increase from $250 up to $1,075. • Alternative GP Fee #1: apply the annual cost against all Building and Planning fees. By spreading the cost over a wider base, the surcharge on each permit will be much smaller. Applying the $1,326,724 cost across base revenue of $20,868,486 (Planning and Building proposed revenue, less GP surcharge revenue of $1,326,724) yields a surcharge of 6.4%. This surcharge should be applied to all Planning and Building fees. • Alternative GP Fee #2: subsidize a portion of the General Plan update. This alternative recognizes that the existing Oakland community benefits from an up to date General Plan and that developers should not shoulder the full burden of these costs. Alternative GP Fee #2 calls for a 50% subsidy to be applied to either of the above two options. This option will recover $663,362 annually.

Fees #60a, 60b and 60c Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing inspection of New Construction, Addition or Remodels – These are proposed new fee categories. These categories would replace many of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing fees. The charge for each subtrade would be a percentage of the building (e.g. structural) inspection permit. Proposed fees are: Electrical 25%; Mechanical 25% and Plumbing 25%. This percentage approach to subtrade

fees greatly reduced administrative time required to calculate subtrade fees and consolidates (reduces) many of the inspection fees. The fiscal impact of this change is unknown, but is estimated to be revenue neutral. It is believed this change will be customer friendly since it will be much easier for developers to anticipate and budget for these fees. The individual subtrade fees will be utilized for projects involving only a single fixture or small improvement.

Building Plan Check –– ––

The vast majority of Building Plan Check fees are set below cost recovery levels. If all fees were adjusted to recommended cost recovery levels, net revenue would increase by $3,619,435 annually.

Fees #21 through 25, Board of Examiners and Appeals fees – these fees are currently flat fees. Due to the wide range of staff time required for these categories, recommendation is to switch these to cost recovery (e.g. time and materials) charges.

Fees #42, Making Building Records Available for Viewing and/or Copying from Archives – this fee is currently set at $34 per instance. Due to the wide range of staff time required from these requests, recommendation is to switch this to cost recovery (e.g. time and materials) charges.

Code Enforcement –– ––

Approximately half of this sections fees are currently set above full cost, while the other half are set below full cost. If fees are set to recommended cost recovery levels, fee revenue would increase by $780,086 annually.

Fees #16 through 19 and #29 Administrative Fees – several of Code Enforcement’s fees are charged as a percentage of the contracted work administered.

MGT recommends these percentages be set at a uniform sliding scale as follows:
• $1 - $5,000: 30%
• $5,000 - $10k 25%
• $10,001+ 20%

Planning
–– ––

Approximately half of this sections fees are set above full cost, while the other half are set below full cost. As a whole, planning fees recover 83% of costs. If fees are set to recommended cost recovery levels, fee revenue would increase by $326,414 annually.

There are no fee structure change recommendations for planning fees.

Engineering Services –– ––

The vast majority of Engineering fees are set below cost recovery levels. If all fees were adjusted to recommended cost recovery levels, net revenue would increase by $283,891 annually.

Engineering Services is staffed by both Building and Public Works staff. The Engineering Services totals have been segregated in the analysis to assist with budgeting and revenue forecasting. Of the increase, $103,289 accrues to Building and $180,602 accrues to Public Works.

Fees #95 Private Party Bike Rack Installation fees – The current fee is $37 while the cost of processing this application is $1,781. MGT recommends this fee not be increased to full cost recovery levels to ensure access to this service is not prohibited by economic hardship. MGT recommends this fee be increased to $74 each.

Fees #62 through 67 Review of Private Infrastructure – These fees are structured as a base fee plus additional fee for each $1,000 of valuation above the base. MGT recommends creating a new category for extremely small projects: $1 to $5,000 project valuation and setting this fee at $1,000. This would keep these services at a reasonable price for very small developments. The full range of proposed fees are as follows:
• $1 to $5,000 construction value: $1,000
• $5,001 to $10,000 construction value: $1,000 + $340 per each additional $1,000 construction value • $10,001 to $50,000 construction value: $2,698 + $9 per each additional $1,000 construction value • $50,001 to $100,000 construction value: $3,046 + $43 per each additional $1,000 construction value • $100,001 to $500,000 construction value: $5,184 + $10 per each additional $1,000 construction value • $500,001 + construction value
1 : $9,063 + $5 per each additional $1,000 construction value 1) MGT recommends for projects over $500,001 valuation, the developer be given the option of paying on a deposit + hourly rate basis.

Fees #75 through 77 Inspection of Private Infrastructure fees – The existing fee is a flat 8% of the Engineering News Record (ENR), which is an index used to estimate infrastructure costs. Best practice is for these fees to be tiered to reflect economies of scale. Accordingly, recommends the following three categories:
• $1 to $100,000 construction value: 8.5%
• $100,001 to $500,000 construction value: $8,500 + 8% over $100,001 construction valuation • $500,001 + construction value1 : $40,500 + 7.5% over $500,001 construction valuation 1) MGT recommends for projects over $500,001 valuation, the developer be given the option of paying on a deposit + hourly rate basis.

Instituting these fee category breakdowns will ensure that small projects are not being subsidized and that large projects are not paying more than full cost.

Department Summary Charts

The subsequent pages display the results of our individual fee analysis. For each section the current charge, total cost and recommended fee are listed for each fee-related service.

The summaries are in the following order:

/xrhombus/xrhombus
/xrhombus/xrhombus Building Administration
/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus Building Inspection /xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus Building Plan Check /xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus Code Enforcement
/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus Planning
/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus/xrhombus Engineering Services

Building Administration

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Annual
Volume
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
1 A) PERMIT APPLICATION FEE
2 Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing Permits
3 Filing 1 0,000 $16 122% $13 $131,162 $160,000 -$28,838 100% $13 -18% $131,162 -$28,838 - 4 Routing - Project Value $2,000 or Less 350 $47 107% $44 $ 15,373 $16,450 -$1,077 100% $44 -7% $15,373 -$1,077 - 5 Routing - Project Value $2,001 or Greater 9,500 $55 96% $57 $541,884 $522,500 $19,384 100% $57 4% $541,884 $19,384 - 6 Routing - Application and Issuance by Internet Conne ction 150 $47 57% $82 $12,306 $7,050 $5,256 100% $82 75% $12,306 $5,256 - 7 All Other Permits and All Other Engineering Process and Approval Requests (Application) - 8 Filing 3 ,000 $16 122% $13 $39,349 $48,000 -$8,651 100% $13 -18% $39,349 -$8,651 - 9 Routing 3 ,000 $55 125% $44 $131,773 $165,000 -$33,227 100% $44 -20% $131,773 -$33,227 - 10 Mailing and Handling Charges Per 25 Count for Permit Application Forms 10 $8.25 75% $11 $110 $83 $27 100% $11 33% $110 $27 - 11 Service Charge for Verification of Proof of License and Workers Compensation Information Required by State Law for Approval of Permit Application 1 $15 114% $13 $13 $15 -$2 100% $13 -13% $13 -$2 - 12 Zoning Sign-Off 1 0 $54 75% $72 $722 $540 $182 100% $72 34% $722 $182 - 13 B) PLANS/MAP PHOTO COPY (COPIES LESS THAN 11"x17") 10 $0.85 78% $1.09 $11 $9 $2 100% $1.10 29% $11 $3 14 C) DOCUMENT RESEARCH FEE 100
Actual cost,
$7 min. n/a $66 $6,580 $6,580 - 100% $64 per hour - $6,580 - - 15 D) PROCESS BILLING APPEALS AND REFUND REQUESTS
T
HAT ARE DETERMINED TO BE UNFOUNDED 100 $99 103% $96 $9,606 $9,900 -$294 100% $96 -3% $9,606 -$294 - 16 E) PROCESS BILLING APPEALS WITH REFERRAL TO
"
COLLECTIONS" 200 $99 31% $318 $63,690 $19,800 $43,890 100% $318 222% $63,690 $43,890 - 17 F) PROCESS BILLING APPEALS FOR SECOND
RESEARCH/REVIEW 20 $99 81% $123 $2,452 $1,980 $472 100% $123 24% $2,452 $472 - 18 G) PROCESSING SECURITY DEPOSITS (BONDS, CASH,
C
ERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS, ETC.) 50 $297 86% $344 $17,204 $14,850 $2,354 100% $344 16% $17,204 $2,354 - 19 H) RECORDS MANAGEMENT FEE 9 .50% n/a Policy 903,096 903,096 - 100% 9.50% - 903,096 - - 20 I) TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT FEE 5 .25% n/a Policy 499,079 499,079 - 100% 5.25% - 499,079 - - Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Services - AdministrationBuilding Services - AdministrationBuilding Services - AdministrationBuilding Services - Administration 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Annual
Volume
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Services - AdministrationBuilding Services - AdministrationBuilding Services - AdministrationBuilding Services - Administration 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
21 J) COLLECTIONS -- PERMITS & CODE ENFORCEMENT - - - - - - 22 Alameda County Collection Surcharge on General Levy 1 .70% n/a Policy - - - 100% 1.70% - - - - 23 City Collection Transfer to or Rescission from Count y 3.00% n/a Policy - - - 100% 3.00% - - - - 24 Interest on Unpaid Fees and Penalties 10.00% n/a Policy - - - 100% 10.00% - - - - 25 K) COURIER SERVICE Actual Cost n/a Policy - - - 100% Actual Cost - - - - 26 L) CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS (new) 100 n/a $1 $110 $110 1 00% $1 $110 $110 Total User Fees $2,374,519 $2,374,931 -$412 $2,374,519 -$411 % of Full Cost 100% 0% 100% 0%

Building Inspection
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
1 A) INSPECTION
2 As Required by the Oakland Building Code or the Oakl and Sign Code for the Issuance of a Permit FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
3 $1 to $1,000 Construction Value 7 00 $50 21% $240 $167,760 $35,000 $132,760 100% $240 379% $167,760 $132,760 - 4 $1,001 to $1,500 Construction Value 5 00 $58 24% $240 $119,829 $29,000 $90,829 100% $240 313% $119,829 $90,829 - 5 $1,500 to $2,000 Construction Value 3 40 $81 30% $273 $92,905 $27,540 $65,365 100% $273 237% $92,905 $65,365 - 6 $2,001 to $25,000 Construction Value -
7 Basic: first $2,001 1 60 $99 29% $340 $54,469 $15,840 $38,629 100% $340 244% $54,469 $38,629 - 8 Surcharge: each add'l $500 $ 8.75 n/a policy - - - 100% $8.75 - - - 9 $25,001 to $50,000 Construction Value -
10 Basic: first $25,001 1 20 $503 67% $753 $90,367 $60,360 $30,007 100% $753 50% $90,367 $30,007 - 11 Surcharge: each add'l $1,000 $ 8.40 n/a policy - - - 100% $8.40 - - - 12 $50,001 to $100,000 Construction Value -
13 Basic: first $50,001 1 00 $712 67% $1,069 $106,943 $71,200 $35,743 100% $1,069 50% $106,943 $35,743 - 14 Surcharge: each add'l $1,000 $ 7.85 n/a policy - - - 100% $7.85 - - - 15 $100,001 and Higher Construction Value -
16 Basic: first $100,001 6 0 $1,105 73% $1,506 $90,367 $66,300 $24,067 100% $1,506 36% $90,367 $24,067 - 17 Surcharge: each add'l $1,000 $ 6.25 n/a policy - - - 100% $6.25 - - - 18 $250,001 and Higher -
19 Basic: $250,001 2 0 $2,036 92% $2,216 $44,321 $40,720 $3,601 100% $2,216 9% $44,321 $3,601 - 20 Surcharge: each add'l $1,000 $ 5.75 n/a policy - - - 100% $5.75 - - - 21 As Required by the Oakland Building Code or the Oakl and Sign Code the Issuance of a Permit For Repairs/Additional/Alteration - 22 $1 to $1,000 Construction Value 8 48 $62 26% $240 $203,230 $52,576 $150,654 100% $240 287% $203,230 $150,654 - 23 $1,001 to $1,500 Construction Value 6 06 $68 28% $240 $145,232 $41,208 $104,024 100% $240 252% $145,232 $104,024 - 24 $1,501 to $2,000 Construction Value 4 36 $94 34% $273 $119,137 $40,984 $78,153 100% $273 191% $119,137 $78,153 - City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
25 $2,001 to $25,000 Construction Value -
26 Basic: first $2,001 2 67 $117 34% $340 $90,896 $31,239 $59,657 100% $340 191% $90,896 $59,657 - 27 Surcharge: each add'l $500 $ 10.50 n/a policy - - - 100% $10.50 - - - 28 $25,001 to $50,000 Construction Value -
29 Basic: first $25,001 1 94 $602 80% $753 $146,094 $116,788 $29,306 100% $753 25% $146,094 $29,306 - 30 Surcharge: each add'l $1,000 $ 10.00 n/a policy - - - 100% $10.00 - - - 31 $50,001 to $200,000 Construction Value -
32 Basic: first $50,001 4 8 $849 79% $1,069 $51,333 $40,752 $10,581 100% $1,069 26% $51,333 $10,581 - 33 Surcharge: each add'l $1,000 $ 9.25 n/a policy - - - 100% $9.25 - - - 34 $200,001 and Higher Construction Value -
35 Basic: first $200,001 2 4 $2,246 88% $2,552 $61,248 $53,904 $7,344 100% $2,552 14% $61,248 $7,344 - 36 Surcharge: each add'l $1,000 $ 7.25 n/a policy - - - 100% $7.25 - - - 37 B) INSPECTION AS REQUIRED BY THE OAKLAND BUILDING CODE FOR

THE ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT -
38 Basic: $ 173 55% $312 - - - 100% $312 80% - - - 39 Surcharge: $ 0.15 per sq ft 198% $151 - - - 100% $0.08 - - - 40 Commencing Work without Obtaining a Permit 1 0x n/a policy - - - 100% 10x - - - 41 C) COMMENCE OR COMPLETE WORK FOR WHICH PERMITS ARE

REQUIRED BY THE OAKLAND BUILDING CODE, OAKLAND SIGN CODE, OR

WINDOW BAR ORDINANCE WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED THE

REQUIRED PERMITS -
42 Work Commenced 2
02 Double All Fees n/a policy - - - 100%Double All Fees - - - 43 Investigation of Work $ 99 49% $202 - - - 100% $202 104% - - - 44 Work Commenced and Completed Prior to Inspection Quadruple Fees n/a policy - - - 100%Quadruple Fees - - - 45 D) EXTRA INSPECTIONS -
46 Building Permit -
47 $1.00 to $2,000 Permit Value: each inspection over 3 551 $99 55% $180 $99,038 $54,549 $44,489 100% $180 82% $99,038 $44,489 -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
48 $2,001 to $25,000 Permit Value: each inspection over 6 557 $99 55% $180 $100,117 $55,143 $44,974 100% $180 82% $100,117 $44,974 - 49 $25,001 to $50,000 Permit Value: each inspection ove r 8 100 $99 55% $180 $17,974 $9,900 $8,074 100% $180 82% $17,974 $8,074 - 50 $50,001 to $100,000 Permit Value: each inspection ov er 10 40 $99 55% $180 $7,190 $3,960 $3,230 100% $180 82% $7,190 $3,230 - 51 $100,001 to $500,000 Permit Value 2 0 $99 55% $180 $3,595 $1,980 $1,615 100% $180 82% $3,595 $1,615 - 52 $500,001 or Greater Permit Value 1 3 $99 55% $180 $2,337 $1,287 $1,050 100% $180 82% $2,337 $1,050 - 53 Electrical or Plumbing or Mechanical Permit -
54 $1.00 to $100 Inspection Fee: each inspection over 3 83 $99 55% $180 $14,919 $8,217 $6,702 100% $180 82% $14,919 $6,702 - 55 $101 to $250 Inspection Fee: each inspection over 5 8 3 $99 55% $180 $14,919 $8,217 $6,702 100% $180 82% $14,919 $6,702 - 56 $251 to $500 Inspection Fee: each inspection over 6 8 3 $99 55% $180 $14,919 $8,217 $6,702 100% $180 82% $14,919 $6,702 - 57 $501 to $1,000 Inspection Fee: each inspection over 8 83 $99 55% $180 $14,919 $8,217 $6,702 100% $180 82% $14,919 $6,702 - 58 $1,001 to $5,000 Inspection Fee: each inspection ove r 10 83 $99 55% $180 $14,919 $8,217 $6,702 100% $180 82% $14,919 $6,702 - 59 $5,001 or Greater Inspection Fee: first $2,001 83 $99 5 5% $180 $14,919 $8,217 $6,702 100% $180 82% $14,919 $6,702 -

NEW) ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING INSPECTION FOR NEW

CONSTRUCTION, ADDITION OR REMODEL
60a Electrical Inspection n ew - - - - - 100%25% of bldg pmt - - - - 60b Mechanical Inspection n ew - - - - - 100%25% of bldg pmt - - - - 60c Plumbing Inspection n ew - - - - - 100%25% of bldg pmt - - - - 60 E) INSPECTION OF FIXTURES AND WASTE DEVICES -
61 Plumbing Fixtures or Waste Discharge Device 83 $19 37% $ 50 $4,182 $1,556 $2,626 100% $50 169% $4,182 $2,626 - 62 Drainage, Gray Water, and/or Vent Piping, Alter, Rep air, or Replace $19 37% $50 - - - - - - - - - 63 Rainwater Leader: Interior Area Drain Interceptor, O n-site Storm System $28 28% $101 - - - - - - - - - 64 Rainwater Piping to Gutter $ 43 64% $67 - - - - - - - - - 65 Interceptor (Grease Trap) $ 87 58% $151 - - - - - - - - - 66 Interceptor (FOG) $ 174 115% $151 - - - - - - - - - 67 Sewer Ejector Sump $ 87 74% $118 - - - - - - - - - 68 Swimming Pool (Complete) 8 3 $173 34% $504 $41,822 $14,359 $27,463 100% $504 191% $41,822 $27,463 -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
69 Roman Tub and/or Baptistery $ 87 - $202 - - - - - - - - - 70 Dishwashing Equipment -
71 Domestic $ 19 - $50 - - - - - - - - - 72 Commercial $ 28 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 73 Garbage Disposal Unit -
74 Domestic $ 19 - $24 - - - - - - - - - 75 Commercial $ 28 - - - - - - - - - - 76 Backwater Valve $ 28 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 77 Plumbing Inspection of New Apartments Larger Than Fo ur Units (Additional Fees are Required for all Water Services, Rainwater Systems, Gas Systems and Units with More than Two Bathrooms) $99 - $202 - - - - - - - - - 78 Waste Alteration $ 28 - $118 - - - - - - - - - 79 Building Sewer $ 173 - - - - - - - - - - 80 On-Site Storm Drainage Piping $ 173 - $134 - - - - - - - - - 81 F) INSPECTION OF WATER PIPING -
82 Water Service (Building Supply) New or Replacement $ 28 - $50 - - - - - - - - - 83 Water Piping, Alter or Repair $ 28 - $134 - - - - - - - - - 84 Water Treatment Equipment $ 28 - $151 - - - - - - - - - 85 Water Heater (Gas or Electric) and/or Storage Tank $ 28 - $134 - - - - - - - - - 86 Backflow Device Including Ball-Cock $ 28 - $91 - - - - - - - - - 87 Pressure Reducing Valve $ 28 - $91 - - - - - - - - - 88 G) INSPECTION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND SPRINKLERS -
89 Fire Protection System, Connection to Domestic Water 83 $28 42% $67 $5,576 $2,324 $3,252 100% $67 140% $5,576 $3,252 - 90 Lawn and Garden Sprinkler System, Each Controlled Zo ne $28 - $67 - - - - - - - - - 91 H) INSPECTION OF GAS AND OIL PIPING -
92 Low Pressure Meter Outlets $ 53 - $118 - - - - - - - - - 93 Medium or High Outlets $ 87 - $185 - - - - - - - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
94 I) INSPECTION OF COOLING EQUIPMENT -
95 Cooling System -
96 To 100,000 BTU 8 3 $43 43% $101 $8,364 $3,569 $4,795 100% $101 134% $8,364 $4,795 - 97 Over 100,000 BTU 8 3 $69 41% $168 $13,941 $5,727 $8,214 100% $168 143% $13,941 $8,214 - 98 Evaporative Cooler $ 43 - $134 - - - - - - - - - 99 Condenser/Compressor-Evaporator Coil Replacement $ 28 - $67 - - - - - - - - - 100 Variable Air Volume Dampers $ 19 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 101 Low Pressure Duct System $ 34 - $114 - - - - - - - - - 102 J) INSPECTION OF HEAT EQUIPMENT -
103 Furnace: Central, Floor, Wall, Unit, Duct or Decorat ive 83 $43 20% $218 $18,123 $3,569 $14,554 100% $218 408% $18,123 $14,554 - 104 Range, Oven, Dryer, Circulating Heater, Fryer, Steamer, Cooker, Barbecue or Log Lighter - 105 Domestic $ 19 - $34 - - - - - - - - - 106 Commercial $ 28 - $134 - - - - - - - - - 107 Gas Torch, Gas Light, Bunsen Burner or Miscellaneous Small Gas Burner $19 - $24 - - - - - - - - - 108 Radiator, Convector, or Panel $ 28 - $67 - - - - - - - - - 109 Incinerator or Kiln -
110 Domestic $ 43 - $84 - - - - - - - - - 111 Commercial $ 87 - $185 - - - - - - - - - 112 Boiler -
113 To 30 Horsepower $ 87 - $134 - - - - - - - - - 114 Over 30 Horsepower $ 140 - $370 - - - - - - - - - 115 Heat Pump $ 43 - $84 - - - - - - - - - 116 Dual Unit, Heating and Cooling $ 79 - $151 - - - - - - - - - 117 Miscellaneous Industrial 8 3 $140 60% $235 $19,517 $11,620 $7,897 100% $235 68% $19,517 $7,897 - 118 Conversion Burner, Manufactured Fireplace $ 87 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 119 Low Pressure Duct System $ 34 - $67 - - - - - - - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
120 K) INSPECTION OF EXHAUST SYSTEMS -
121 Range Hood (Commercial) $ 173 - $202 - - - - - - - - - 122 Environmental Air Ducts -
123 Residential $ 19 - $84 - - - - - - - - - 124 Commercial $ 43 - $151 - - - - - - - - - 125 Gas Vent (Flues) $ 19 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 126 Industrial Processing Equipment Exhaust System $ 140 - $235 - - - - - - - - - 127 Fan or F/C Unit -
128 To 10,000 CFM $ 34 - $84 - - - - - - - - - 129 Over 10,000 CFM $ 68 - $151 - - - - - - - - - 130 L) INSPECTION OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS -
131 Fire Damper and/or Sub-Duct $ 19 - $302 - - - - - - - - - 132 Electrostatic Filter $ 19 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 133 Condensate Drain System $ 19 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 134 Humidifier $ 19 - $50 - - - - - - - - - 135 Manufactured Home-Plumbing System $ 131 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 136 Manufactured Home-Mechanical System $ 131 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 137 For Each Additional Attached Unit $ 43 - $57 - - - - - - - - - 138 M) REQUEST INSPECTIONS OUTSIDE OF NORMAL WORKING HOURS (2.5 HOURS MINIMUM) 83 $173 57% $302 $25,093 $14,359 $10,734 100% $302 75% $25,093 $10,734 - 139 N) FIELD CHECK INSPECTION FEE 8 3 $99 49% $202 $16,729 $8,217 $8,512 100% $202 104% $16,729 $8,512 - 140 O) ZONING INSPECTIONS FOR BUILDING PERMITS -
141 New Construction up to $200,000 8 3 $173 45% $386 $32,063 $14,359 $17,704 100% $386 32,063 17,704 - 142 New Construction over $200,000 8 3 $83 82% $101 $8,364 $6,889 $1,475 100% $101 8,364 1,475 - 143 Additions/Alterations over $5,000 8 3 $173 64% $269 $22,305 $14,359 $7,946 100% $269 22,305 7,946 - 144 P) PLAN CHECKING FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING OR MECHANICAL PERMITS - 145 Residential 2 0% n/a $605 - - - 100% 20% - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
146 Energy 1 3% n/a $302 - - - 100% 13% - - - 147 Commercial 6 4% n/a $1,209 - - - 100% 64% - - - 148

Q) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF NEW APARTMENTS LARGER THAN FOUR-UNITS. ADDITIONAL FEES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL APPLIANCES, MOTORS, SERVICES, FEEDERS AND BRANCH CIRCUITS 83 $99 49% $202 $16,729 $8,217 $8,512 100% $202 104% $16,729 $8,512 - 149

R) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL APPLIA NCE

INCLUDING ROUGH OUTLET -
150 Range, Range Top or Oven 8 3 $19 37% $50 $4,182 $1,556 $2,626 100% $50 169% $4,182 $2,626 - 151 Dryer 8 3 $19 37% $50 $4,182 $1,556 $2,626 100% $50 169% $4,182 $2,626 - 152 Fan Under 1 Horsepower 8 3 $2 5% $34 $2,788 $149 $2,639 100% $34 1766% $2,788 $2,639 - 153 Disposal or Dishwasher 8 3 $7 21% $34 $2,788 $593 $2,195 100% $34 370% $2,788 $2,195 - 154 S) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OR MISCELLANEOUS INSPECTI ON - 155 Air Conditioning Unit -
156 Basic 8 3 $34 34% $101 $8,364 $2,822 $5,542 100% $101 196% $8,364 $5,542 - 157 Surcharge 8 3 $4 11% $34 $2,788 $299 $2,489 100% $34 833% $2,788 $2,489 - 158 Beverage or Freezer Case (Cabinet Only) $ 19 - $50 - - - - - - - - - 159 Dental Unit, Gasoline Dispenser or Sterilizer $ 19 - $50 - - - - - - - - - 160 Vegetable or Meat Case, X-ray Machine or Motion Pict ure Machine $19 - $50 - - - - - - - - - 161 Pool, Spa, Hot Tub, Hydro Massage, Bath Tub -
162 Swimming Pool $ 140 - $202 - - - - - - - - - 163 Outdoor - Hot Tub, Spa $ 87 - $151 - - - - - - - - - 164 Indoor - Hot Tub, Spa, Hydro Massage Bath Tub $ 62 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 165 Fountains $ 53 - $101 - - - - - - - - - 166 Manufactured Home and Other State-Approved Buildings $ 131 - $202 - - - - - - - - - 167 Additional Sections $ 43 - $151 - - - - - - - - - 168 Low Voltage Systems $ 168 - $151 - - - - - - - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
169 T) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION -
170 Branch Circuit and Feeder for Lighting, Heating, Power Signaling, or Other Purpose $5.40 - $50 - - - - - - - - - 171
Outlet, Including Attached Receptacle, When Installe d Not More Than 24 Inches Apart for Border, Strip, or Footlight, or for Outline Decorative Display, or Group Lighting Elsewhere When in Show Window Lighting and on Electric Sign $0.95 - $17 - - - - - - - - - 172
Outlet, Including Attached Receptacle, for Temporary
Festoon or
Decorative Lighting or for Temporary Working Light for Use in Building Construction $0.95 - $17 - - - - - - - - - 173 Plastic Outlet Boxes in Fire Related Construction, N ot Including Device $1.80 - $34 - - - - - - - - - 174

U) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF MOTORS, GENERATORS, MO TOR-

GENERATOR SETS, BALANCER SETS, DYNAMOTORS, CONVERTERS,

TRANSFORMERS, BALANCING COILS, OR RECTIFIERS INCLUDING ALL

CONTROL APPARATUS -
175 Basic $
4 - $34 - - - - - - - - - 176 Maximum $ 263 - $403 - - - - - - - - - 177 V) INSPECTION OF ELECTRICAL SERVICE -
178 Service Over 600 Volts -
179 First 200 KVA 8 3 $53 35% $151 $12,547 $4,399 $8,148 100% $151 185% $12,547 $8,148 - 180 Over 200 KVA 8 3 $12 18% $67 $5,576 $996 $4,580 100% $67 460% $5,576 $4,580 - 181 Service 600 Volts or Less -
182 Basic Fee for First 100 Ampere Capacity Including 1 Meter 83 $69 46% $151 $12,547 $5,727 $6,820 100% $151 119% $12,547 $6,820 - 183 Surcharge (Each Additional 100 Ampere or Fraction Th ereof) 83 $53 105% $50 $4,182 $4,399 -$217 100% $50 -5% $4,182 -$217 - 184 Additional Meter 8 3 $12 24% $50 $4,182 $996 $3,186 100% $50 320% $4,182 $3,186 - 185 W) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF LIGHTING FIXTURE -
186 Incandescent 8 3 $2 7% $25 $2,091 $149 $1,942 100% $25 1300% $2,091 $1,942 - 187 Florescent Lighting Fixture (Complete with One Balla st) 83 $4 11% $34 $2,788 $299 $2,489 100% $34 833% $2,788 $2,489 - 188 Mercury Vapor, High Pressure Sodium and Similar Ligh ting Fixture 83 $5 16% $34 $2,788 $448 $2,340 100% $34 522% $2,788 $2,340 -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee
Current
Recove
ry %
Full Cost Annual
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase
from Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
189

X) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF A SWITCH WHEN NOT ATTA CHED TO

OR INCLUDED WITH APPARATUS NOT SPECIFICALLY CLASSIFIED IN THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 83 $1.80 5% $34 $2,788 $149 $2,639 100% $34 1766% $2,788 $2,639 - 190

Y) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF RECEPTACLE, WALL SOCKE T, OR

SIMILAR FIXTURE NOT SPECIFICALLY CLASSIFIED IN THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 83 $1.80 5% $34 $2,788 $149 $2,639 100% $34 1766% $2,788 $2,639 - 191

Z) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF AIR, WATER OR OTHER TYPE HEATER, WELDING MACHINES OR COMMERCIAL RANGES - 192 Basic 8 3 $4 11% $34 $2,788 $299 $2,489 100% $34 833% $2,788 $2,489 - 193 Maximum 8 3 $262 65% $403 $33,458 $21,746 $11,712 100% $403 54% $33,458 $11,712 - 194 AA) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF A NEW ELECTRIC SIGN BEARING AN APPROVED LABEL INCLUDING CONNECTION 83 $43 51% $84 $6,970 $3,569 $3,401 100% $84 95% $6,970 $3,401 - 195 AB) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION REQUIRED ON AN EXISTING SIGN DUE TO MINOR ALTERATIONS ON AND/OR MOVING OF THE SIGN83 $34 67% $50 $4,182 $2,822 $1,360 100% $50 48% $4,182 $1,360 - 196 AC) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF OUTLINE NEON OR COLD CATHODE LIGHTING 83 $13 25% $50 $4,182 $1,050 $3,132 100% $50 298% $4,182 $3,132 - 197

AD) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF MACHINE APPARATUS OR APPLIANCE

NOT SPECIFICALLY CLASSIFIED IN THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - 198 Basic 8 3 $4 11% $34 $2,788 $299 $2,489 100% $34 833% $2,788 $2,489 - 199 Maximum 8 3 $264 65% $403 $33,458 $21,912 $11,546 100% $403 53% $33,458 $11,546 - 200 AE) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF A FORCED AIR FURNACE 8 3 $19 37% $50 $4,182 $1,556 $2,626 100% $50 169% $4,182 $2,626 -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee
Current
Recovery
%
Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommen
ded
Subsidy
201 A F) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF A MOVED BUILDING (ONE HOUR MINIMUM) $62 n/a $151 - - - - - - - - 202

AG) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION OR
T
EMPORARY SERVICE (POLE OR UNDERGROUND) $79 n/a $151 - - - - - - - - 203 AH) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION -
204 Survey of Electrical Work or Equipment Pursuant to a Request Hourly 83 $131 65% $202 $16,729 $10,873 $5,856 100% $202 54% $16,729 $5,856 - 205 AI) ELECTRICAL INSPECTION AS REQUIRED BY OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE (METER RESETS) - 206 Single Family Dwelling 8 3 $34 51% $67 $5,576 $2,822 $2,754 100% $67 98% $5,576 $2,754 - 207 Apartment (each) 8 3 $28 42% $67 $5,576 $2,324 $3,252 100% $67 140% $5,576 $3,252 - 208 Commercial or Industrial (per hour) Hourly 83 $69 34% $20 2 $16,729 $5,727 $11,002 100% $202 192% $16,729 $11,002 - 209

AJ) SPECIAL PERMIT AS ALLOWED BY OAKLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANT PERMIT) Delete $99 100% -100% -
210 AK) UN-REINFORCED MASONRY ORDINANCE - BUILDING PERMIT - 211 Engineering Analysis Report Review $ 869 53% $1,633 100% $1,633 88% 212 Request to Postpone Retrofit Work (Abutting Building ) $869 53% $1,633 100% $1,633 88% 213 Contracted Engineering Services A ctual cost n/a policy - - - 100% Actual cost - - - 214 Contract Administration Services 1 4% n/a policy - - - 100% n/a 14% - - - 215 Field Inspection/Site Visits (1 Hour Minimum) Hourly $ 99 49% $202 - - - 100% $202 104% - - - 216 AL) GENERAL PLAN SURCHARGE
217 Basic
218 Building Permit 0 .10% 23% 0.43% $1,326,724 $310,668 $1,016,056 100% 0.43% 327% $1,326,724 1,016,056 219 Demolition Permit Delete 12% n/a - - - - - - - - 220 Private Plan/Public Improvement ("P-Job") Permit 0 .10% 23% 0.43% - - - 100% 0.43% 327% - - - Exemptions
221a Abatement of Earthquake Damaged Buildings 55% Genl Plan n/a Policy - - - 100%55% Genl Plan - - - 221b
Abatement of Potentially Hazardous Unreinforced Masonry Buildings 55% Genl Plan n/a Policy - - - 100%55% Genl Plan - - - RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee
Current
Recovery
%
Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommen
ded
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453Building Inspection #84451-84453 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual

AM) REPORT OF PERMIT RECORD
222 Research of Permit Record p er bldg 129 $99 / hour $124 $16,059 $12,771 $3,288 100% $124 $16,059 $3,288 - 223 Determination or Assessment per bldg 129 $99 each $124 $ 16,059 $12,771 $3,288 100% $124 $16,059 $3,288 - 226 AN) CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY RELATED TO CONST.
227 Certificate of Occupancy 1 11 $262 37% $705 $78,303 $29,082 $49,221 100% $705 169% $78,303 $49,221 - 228 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 1 7 $524 87% $605 $10,279 $8,908 $1,371 100% $605 15% $10,279 $1,371 - 229 AO) MITIGATION MONITORING continue w policy
50% of bldg
pmt n/a policy - - - 100% 50% of bldg
pmt - - -
230 AP) HOTEL/MOTEL/ROOMING HOUSE INSPECTION FEE
231 with up to 24 units n ew-annual 50 $3,470 $173,500 $173,500 100% $3,470 $173,500 $173,500 232 with 25-49 units n ew-annual 29 $6,940 $201,260 $201,260 100% $6,940 $201,260 $201,260 233 with 50+ units n ew-annual 1 $10,410 $10,410 $10,410 100% $10,410 $10,410 $10,410 234 Diamond rated chain hotels/motels new-annual 26 $ 504 $13,101 $13,101 99% $500 $13,000 $13,000 $101 Total User Fees $4,196,386 $1,482,544 $2,713,843 $4,196,285 $2,713,742 % of Full Cost 35% 65% 100% 183%

Building Plan Check
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Descript
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
1 A) PLAN CHECKING AND/OR PROCESSING OF APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT

REQUIRED BY OAKLAND BUILDING CODE OR OAKLAND SIGN CODE OR ANY SECTION

OF THE OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
2 Project Value $2,001 or Above 4 ,264 90% of pmt 68% $1,717 $7,320,182 $4,977,367 $2,342,815 100% 132% 47% $7,320,182 $2,342,815 - 3 Building Permit Fee on Projects Checked by Authorize d Engineering Firm 64% of pmt 118% $611 - - - 100% 37% - - - 4 Enforcement of State of California Regulations, Oakl and Building Code 4,554 33% of pmt 69% $528 $2,403,184 $1,660,616 $742,568 100% 130% 45% $2,403,184 $742,568 - 5 Request Plan Checking Outside of Regular Working Hou rs Hourly 354 $191 51% $375 $132,827 $67,614 $65,213 100% $375 96% $132,827 $65,213 - 6 Consultation Requested for Preliminary Plan Review b y Plan Check Staff 7 Regular Working Hours H ourly 1 $131 52% $250 $250 $131 $119 100% $250 91% $250 $119 - 8 Outside of Regular Working Hours H ourly 1 $191 51% $375 $375 $191 $184 100% $375 96% $375 $184 - 9 Additional Checking and/or Processing Required Due t o Plan Deficiencies or Changes 506 $131 52% $250 $126,574 $66,286 $60,288 100% $250 91% $126,574 $60,288 - 10 Process Coordination Fee for each applicable Permit for Projects Equal to or Greater than $500,000 valuation 14% 0% $26,515 - - - 100% 3% - - - 11 B) INSTALLATION / REGISTRATION / INSPECTION CERTIF ICATION FOR RE-ROOFING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATION FOR INSULATION PERMIT 627 $19 64% $30 $18,976 $12,101 $6,875 100% $30 57% $18,976 $6,875 - 12 C) ASSIGNMENT AND DESIGNATION OF BUILDING NUMBERS AS REQUIRED BY

OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
13 Dwelling 8 2 $36 73% $49 $4,049 $2,952 $1,097 100% $49 37% $4,049 $1,097 - 14 Other (Building, Apartment, or Hotel) 2 5 $98 73% $135 $3,373 $2,450 $923 100% $135 38% $3,373 $923 - 15 Change of Address 3 $393 112% $352 $1,056 $1,179 -$123 100% $352 -10% $1,056 -$123 - 16 D) PROCESSING OF A BUILDING MOVING APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BY OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE $917 106% $869 - - - 100% $869 -5% - - - 17 E) SERVICE CHARGE TO PROCESS REQUEST TO EXTEND PER MIT EXPIRATION

LIMITATION OR REINSTATE PERMIT
18 Extension or Reinstatement 2 65 $71 52% $136 $35,918 $18,815 $17,103 100% $136 91% $35,918 $17,103 - 19 F) NOISE STUDY FOR BUILDING PERMIT $ 262 63% $417 100% $417 - - - 20 G) BOARD OF EXAMINERS & APPEALS
21 Grade I - Minimum Code Technically or Deviations Requiring Limited Management Staff Time 9 $180 n/a actual cost $1,620 $1,620 - 100% actual cost - - - RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan Check 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Descript
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan Check 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
22 Grade II - Code Violations Found During Plan Checkin g or Field Inspection Requiring Field Review by Management 81 $393 n/a actual cost $31,833 $31,833 - 100% actual cost - - - 23 Grade III - Appeals Regarding Code Requirements When Projects are Still in the Design Stage 6 $917 n/a actual cost $5,502 $5,502 - 100% actual cost - - - 24 Grade IV - Dangerous Building Code and Appeals by Ot her City Departments $917 n/a actual cost - - - 100% actual cost - - - 25 Appeals Pursuant to URB Ordinance No. 11613 C.M.S., Sections 18-6.16 (B) - (F) No Fee n/a actual cost - - - 100% actual cost - - - 26 H) SITE PLAN REVIEW
27 Site Plan Review 1 2 $917 139% $658 $7,899 $11,004 -$3,105 100% $658 -28% $7,899 -$3,105 - 28 Parking Review First 4 Spaces 1 2 $262 57% $462 $5,548 $3,144 $2,404 100% $462 76% $5,548 $2,404 - 29 Surcharge
30 5-20 Parking Spaces 1 2 $262 45% $587 $7,049 $3,144 $3,905 100% $587 124% $7,049 $3,905 - 31 21-40 Parking Spaces 1 3 $393 55% $712 $9,262 $5,109 $4,153 100% $712 81% $9,262 $4,153 - 32 41-120 Parking Spaces 1 3 $524 63% $838 $10,888 $6,812 $4,076 100% $838 60% $10,888 $4,076 - 33 121-300 Parking Spaces 1 3 $655 68% $963 $12,514 $8,515 $3,999 100% $963 47% $12,514 $3,999 - 34 301 or More Parking Spaces 1 3 $786 72% $1,088 $14,140 $10,218 $3,922 100% $1,088 38% $14,140 $3,922 - 35 I) GEOLOGICAL REPORT REVIEW OR GEOLOGICAL REPORT W AIVER REVIEW AS

REQUIRED BY OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
36 Geological Report Deposit d eposit $917 to $2,738 n/a policy - - - n/a n/a n/a - - - 37 Report Review $ 262 42% $625 - - - 100% $625 139% - - - 38 Consultant Review a ctual cost n/a actual cost - - - 100% actual cost - - - 39 Review of Waiver of Geological Report Requirements
40 Letter of Waiver by City Engineer $ 393 68% $581 - - - 100% $581 48% - - - 41 Comments and Advice Offered by City to State Mining and Geology Board and State Geologists as Part of a Waiver Investigation Pursuant to Chapter 7.5, Section 2623 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California delete $917 n/a n/a - - - n/a n/a n/a - - - 42 J) MAKING BUILDING RECORDS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING A ND/OR COPYING FROM ARCHIVES $34 n/a actual cost - - - 100% actual cost - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Descript
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan Check 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
43 K) PROCESSING REQUEST FOR HANDICAPPED EXCEPTION TO TITLE 24

REGULATION
44 Grade I - Minimum Code Technically Requiring Limited Staff Time $180 78% $229 - - - 100% $229 - - - 45 Grade II - Code Violation Requiring Field Review or Additional Staff Time 20 $393 64% $610 $12,199 $7,860 $4,339 100% $610 55% $12,199 $4,339 - 46 Grade III - Appeals Regarding Code Requirements when Projects are in Design Stage $917 114% $804 - - - 100% $804 -12% - - - 47 L) DUPLICATE INSPECTION RECORD CARD
48 Replace $ 8 27% $30 - - - 100% $30 270% - - - 49 Research $ 46 52% $89 - - - 100% $89 93% - - - 51 M) PROCESSING REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE MATERIALS OR M ETHOD OF

CONSTRUCTION
52 Grade I - Minimum Code Deviations Requiring Limited Staff Time $180 32% $568 - - - 100% $568 216% - - - 53 Grade II - Code Violations Found During Plan Checkin g or Field Inspection 54 First Two Requests $ 393 64% $610 - - - 100% $610 55% - - - 55 Additional Request $ 655 71% $928 - - - 100% $928 42% - - - 56 Grade III - Appeals Regarding Code Requirements When Projects are Still in the Design Stage 57 First Two Requests $ 917 95% $970 - - - 100% $970 6% - - - 58 Additional Request $ 1,310 118% $1,108 - - - 100% $1,108 -15% - - - 59 N) DRIVEWAY APPEALS
60 Grade I - Minimum Code Deviations Requiring Limited Staff Time $180 32% $568 - - - 100% $568 216% - - - 61 Grade II - Code Violations Found During Plan Checkin g or Field Inspection Requiring Field Review by Management $393 69% $568 - - - 100% $568 45% - - - 62 Appeals for Projects in Design Stage $ 524 69% $762 - - - 100% $762 46% - - - 63 Appeals to City Council $ 524 69% $762 - - - 100% $762 46% - - - 64 O) PLAN CHECK FOR DRIVEWAY PERMITS $ 98 80% $123 - - - 100% $123 25% - - - 65 P) PROCESSING DEMOLITION PERMITS (EXEMPT: SFD DETA CHED GARAGE LESS THAN 400 S.F.) $393 137% $286 - - - 100% $286 -27% - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Descript
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan Check 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
66 Q) PROCESSING TREE REMOVAL PERMITS
67 Developed Property d elete $66
68 Undeveloped Property $ 131
69 R) PROCESSING UTILITY COMPANY EXCAVATION PERMIT $131 70 S) EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT REVIEW (No Report Fee for Owner-Occupied Single Family Dwellings)
71 Minor Report (Less Than 3 Hour Review) 6 1% $917 45% $2,020 - - - 100% $2,020 120% - - - 72 Major Report (3 Hour Review or Over) 6 1% $3,537 44% $7,989 - - - 100% $7,989 126% - - - 73 T) ZONING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMPLIANCE
74 New Construction Up to $200,000 9 5 $173 7% $2,414 $229,284 $16,435 $212,849 100% $2,414 1295% $229,284 $212,849 - 76 New Construction Over $200,001
77 Per Each $100,000 Over $200,000 9 5 $131 13% $977 $92,805 $12,445 $80,360 100% $977 646% $92,805 $80,360 - 78 Maximum $ 17,423 n/a policy decision - - - 100% $17,423 - - - 79 Additions/Alterations Over $5,000 9 6 $180 21% $862 $82,749 $17,280 $65,469 100% $862 379% $82,749 $65,469 - 80 U) MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING REVIEW
81 Regular Working Hours H ourly $131 52% $250 - - - 100% $250 91% - - - 82 Outside of Regular Working Hours H ourly $191 51% $375 - - - 100% $375 96% - - - 83 V) PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT NOT RELATED TO ANY

OTHER REQUIRED PERMIT
84 Application H ourly $71 60% $119 - - - 100% $119 67% - - - 85 Plan check During Regular Working Hours H ourly $131 52% $250 - - - 100% $250 91% - - - 86 Inspection during Regular Working Hours H ourly $99 26% $375 - - - 100% $375 279% - - - 87 W) PRE-APPLICATION FEE
88 Less than $500,000 Construction Valuation N ew $417 - - - 100% $417 - - - 89 Greater than $500,001 Construction Valuation N ew $2,147 - - - 100% $2,147 - - - Delete - this service is provided by Engineering
Delete - obsolete permit
Delete - obsolete permit

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Descript
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Building Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan CheckBuilding Services - # 84431 Plan Check 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Total User Fees $10,531,103 $6,911,668 $3,619,435 $10,531,103 $3,619,435 % of Full Cost 66% 34% 100% 52%
Note: Projects which exceed the typical size range may be charged on a time and materials basis at the Development Director's discretion.

Code Enforcement

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Building Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code Enforcement Service Name Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommend
ed Subsidy
1 A) VARIANCE FROM OAKLAND BUILDING
M

AINTENANCE CODE REQUIREMENTS
2 Administrative 1 $396 83% $475 $475 $396 $79 100% $475 20% $475 $79 - 3 Hearing Examiner 1 $990 73% $1,350 $1,350 $990 $360 100% $1,350 36% $1,350 $360 - 4 B) SERVICE FEES
5 Re-inspection to Verify or Monitor Progress of
V
iolations Abatement
6 Conditions of Compliance 349 $99 79% $125 $43,586 $34,551 $ 9,035 100% $125 26% $43,586 $9,035 - 7 All Others $ 396 192% $206 - - - 100% $206 -48% - - - 8 Certificate of Occupancy
9 Basic 2 $693 56% $1,236 $2,473 $1,386 $1,087 100% $1,236 78% $2,473 $1,087 - 10 Surcharge 2 $99 159% $62 $125 $198 -$73 100% $62 -37% $125 -$73 - 11 Re-Inspection $ 99 79% $125 - - - 100% $125 26% - - - 12 Third-Party Contract A ctual cost 100% Actual cost - - - 100% Actual cost - - - - 13 Complaint Investigation 282 $99 79% $125 $35,219 $27,918 $7 ,301 100% $125 26% $35,219 $7,301 - 14 C) ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
15 Contracted Work
16 Demolition 1 31% or $1,980 min 92% $2,142 $2,142 $1,980 $162 100% 8% $2,142 $162 - 17 All Other 1 45 31% or $693 min 59% $1,180 $171,129 $100,485 $70,644 100% 70% $171,129 $70,644 - 18 Bid/Contract Development 150 $396 159% $250 $37,467 $59,40 0 -$21,933 100% -37% $37,467 -$21,933 - 19 Contractor Mobilization 3 10% or $297 min. n/a Policy $891 $891 - 100% n/a $891 - - 20 Public Documents (Order, Invoice, Notice,
D
eclaration, Lien, Release, Termination, etc.)
21 Preparation 2 167 $297 58% $512 $1,109,602 $643,599 $466,003 100% $512 72% $1,109,602 $466,003 - 22 Notarizing 3 58 $99 106% $94 $33,533 $35,442 -$1,909 100% $94 -5% $33,533 -$1,909 - 23 Recording (pass thru to County) 358 Actual cost or $50 min. n/a Policy $17,900 $17,900 - 100% Actual cost or $50
min. - $17,900 - - $1-$5,000: 30%
'$5,001-10k: 25%
$10,001+: 20%
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Building Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code Enforcement Service Name Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommend
ed Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
24 Court Action
25 Judgment Actual cost or $262 min. n/a Policy - - - 100% Actual cost or $262
min. - - - - 26 Inspection Warrant 12 $693 52% $1,330 $15,961 $8,316 $7,645 100% $1,330 92% $15,961 $7,645 - 27 Real Property Title Research
28 Report 2 0 Actual cost n/a Policy - - - 100% Actual cost - - - - 29 Processing 3 1% or $198 min. 198% $100 - - - 100% $1-$5,000: 30%
$5,001-10k: 25%
$10,001+: 20% - - - - 30 Compliance plan
31 Building not declared substandard 12 $396 24% $1,620 $19, 445 $4,752 $14,693 100% $1,620 309% $19,445 $14,693 - 32 Building declared substandard 13 $1,485 65% $2,297 $29,86 0 $19,305 $10,555 100% $2,297 55% $29,860 $10,555 - 33 Process Violation 2 82 $396 159% $250 $70,437 $111,672 -$41,235 100% $250 -37% $70,437 -$41,235 - 34 Escrow Demand Preparation 367 $99 79% $125 $45,834 $36,333 $9,501 100% $125 26% $45,834 $9,501 - 35 D) SUBPOENA
36 Witness Fee (Not Related to Employee's Duties) $150 + mileage 100% $150 - - - 100%$150 + mileage - - - - 37 Witness Fee (Related to Employee's Duties) 13 $150 100% $150 $1,950 $1,950 - 100% $150 - $1,950 - 38 E) APPEALS TO HEARING EXAMINER
39 Filing Fee 2 8 $99 57% $175 $4,896 $2,772 $2,124 100% $175 77% $4,896 $2,124 - 40 Review Appeal and Conduct Hearing A ctual cost Actual cost - - - 100% Actual cost - - - - 41 Processing Fee $ 594 73% $812 - - - 100% $812 37% - - - 42 Reschedule Appeals Hearing $ 99 34% $287 - - - 100% $287 190% - - - 43 F) DUPLICATE RELEASE OF LIEN OR
T

ERMINATION OF SUBSTANDARD PUBLIC
NUISANCE 30 $50 31% $162 $4,871 $1,500 $3,371 100% $162 225% $4,871 $3,371 - 44 G) PUSHCART FOOD VENDING
45 Application Processing $ 75 120% $62 - - - 100% $62 -17% - - - 46 Initial Permit Fee $ 455 73% $624 - - - 100% $624 37% - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Building Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code Enforcement Service Name Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommend
ed Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
47 Permit Renewal Fee $ 455 73% $624 - - - 100% $624 37% - - - 48 Late Fee
49 Assessed as a percentage of permit fee based on
l
ength of time after date of the renewal letter as
follows:
50 30-60 Days 1 0% n/a Policy - - - 100% 10% - - - - 51 60-90 Days 2 0% n/a Policy - - - 100% 20% - - - - 52 After 90 Days 5 0% n/a Policy - - - 100% 50% - - - - 53 Legalizing Illegal Vendor $ 914 n/a Policy - - - 100% $914 - - - 54 H) VEHICULAR FOOD VENDING PERMIT
55 Application Processing $ 137 110% $125 - - - 100% $125 -9% - - - 56 Initial Permit Fee $ 1,822 133% $1,374 - - - 100%$1,374 -25% - - - 57 Permit Renewal Fee $ 1,822 133% $1,374 - - - 100%$1,374 -25% - - - 58 Late Fee
59 Assessed as a percentage of permit fee based on
length of time after date of the renewal letter as
follows:
60 30-60 Days 1 0% n/a Policy - - - 100% 10% - - - - 61 60-90 Days 2 0% n/a Policy - - - 100% 20% - - - - 62 After 90 Days 5 0% n/a Policy - - - 100% 50% - - - - 63 Legalizing Illegal Vendor $ 3,644 n/a Policy - - - 100%$3,644 - - - 64 I) PROCESSING VIOLATION APPEALS THAT ARE
D
ETERMINED TO BE UNFOUNDED $99 99% $100 - - - 100% $100 1% - - - 65 J) GARBAGE AND REFUSE RECEPTACLES FOR -
R
3 OCCUPANCIES SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
FEES (except lien- related fees)
66 Occurrence (OMC Chapter 8.24) $ 50 22% $225 - - - 100% $225 350% - - - 67 Compliance Monitoring $ 50 40% $125 - - - 100% $125 150% - - - 68 K) VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Building Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code EnforcementBuilding Services - # 84454 Code Enforcement Service Name Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommend
ed Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
69 Annual Registration Processing 868 $396 65% $612 $531,178 $343,728 $187,450 100% $612 55% $531,178 $187,450 - 70 Annual Compliance Inspection 868 $99 79% $125 $108,404 $85 ,932 $22,472 100% $125 26% $108,404 $22,472 - 71 L) NON-OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL
B

UILDING REGISTRATION
72 Annual Registration Processing 120 $339 55% $612 $73,435 $ 40,680 $32,755 100% $612 $73,435 $32,755 - 73 Annual Re-registration After Abatement or if No
V
iolation $71 57% $125 - - - 100% $125 - - - 74 Compliance Inspection $ 99 79% $125 - - - 100% $125 - - - Total User Fees $2,362,162 $1,582,076 $780,086 $2,362,162 $780,086 % of Full Cost 67% 33% 100% 49%

Planning
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
1 Major Conditional Use Permit:
2 Report Fee
+
$131/hr
over 10 hrs 146 $2,358 80% $2,935 $428,453 $344,268 $84,185 100% $2,935 24% $428,453 $84,185 - 3 Notification Fee 2 00 $917 83% $1,105 $220,906 $183,400 $37,506 100% $1,105 20% $220,906 $37,506 - 4 Major Variance: -
5 Report Fee
+
$131/hr
over 10 hrs 30 $2,358 80% $2,935 $88,038 $70,740 $17,298 100% $2,935 24% $88,038 $17,298 - 6 Notification Fee: Major Conditional Use Permit $ 917 7 Rezoning: -
8 Rezoning $ 3,537 77% $4,621 - - - 100% $4,621 31% - - - 9 Notification Fee: Rezoning / Zoning Text Amendm ent $917 10 Planned Unit Development (Preliminary) -
11 Basic Fee $ 6,650 88% $7,569 - - - 100% $7,569 14% - - - 12 Plus per Sq Ft over 10,000 of Site Area over 4 Acres per 10,000
sq ft $45 n/a policy - - - 100% $45 - - - 13 Plus per Sq Ft of Floor Area p er sq ft $0.03 130% $0.02 - - - 100% $0.02 -33% - - - 14 Notification Fee: Planned Unit Development (Pre liminary) $917 15 Planned Unit Development (Final) -
16 Basic Fee 5 $5,371 99% $5,449 $27,246 $26,855 $391 100% $5,449 1% $27,246 $391 - 17 Plus per Sq Ft of Floor Area p er sq ft $0.03 150% $0.02 - - - 100% $0.02 -33% - - - 18 Notification Fee: Planned Unit Development (Fin al) $917 19 Minor Variance: -
20 Report Fee 3 5 $1,310 90% $1,450 $50,742 $45,850 $4,892 100% $1,450 11% $50,742 $4,892 - 21 Notification Fee: Minor Variance $ 917
22 Minor CUP: -
23 Report Fee 3 9 $1,310 90% $1,450 $56,541 $51,090 $5,451 100% $1,450 11% $56,541 $5,451 - 24 Notification Fee: Minor CUP $ 917
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3)

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
25 Regular Design Review: -
26 Report Fee - Minor Project 6 1 $1,310 90% $1,450 $88,435 $79,910 $8,525 100% $1,450 11% $88,435 $8,525 - 27 Report Fee - Major Project
+
$131/hr
over 10 hrs 135 $2,358 89% $2,649 $357,589 $318,330 $39,259 100% $2,649 12% $357,589 $39,259 - 28 Notification Fee: Regular Design Review $ 917
29 Small Project Design Review: -
30 Report Fee - Track One $ 655 146% $448 - - - 100% $448 -32% - - - 31 Report Fee - Track One (signs & fences) 5 $393 105% $373 $1,866 $1,965 -$99 100% $373 -5% $1,866 -$99 - 32 Report Fee - Track One (Secondary Units between 500 and 900 Sq. Ft.) $750 128% $586 - - - 100% $586 -22% - - - 33 Report Fee - Track Two $ 991 175% $566 - - - 100% $566 -43% - - - 34 Report Fee - Track Three $ 1,179 113% $1,041 - - - 100% $1,041 -12% - - - 35 Notification Fee: Small Project Design Review ( if notice required) 31 $524 92% $570 $17,673 $16,244 $1,429 100% $570 9% $17,673 $1,429 - 36 Special Residential Design Review -
37 Design Review Exemption -
38 Report Fee Not involving changes to the Building Envelope or Exterior $232 95% $244 - - - 100% $244 5% - - - 39 Report Fee Involving Changes to the Building Envelope or Exterior $393 152% $259 - - - 100% $259 -34% - - - 40 Report Fee for Secondary Units under 500 s quare feet $420 103% $406 - - - 100% $406 -3% - - - 41 Report Fee for matching exterior changes on ly $50 68% $74 - - - 100% $74 48% - - - 42 S-11 Design Review - Special Fees -
43 North Oakland Hill Area Specific Plan Recovery Fee Per Dwelling $393 96% $408 - - - 100% $408 4% - - - 44 Notification Fee: Development Agreement $ 917
45 Development Agreement $ 11,894 99% $12,074 - - - 100% $12,074 2% - - - 46 Development Agreement: Annual Review 1 $3,599 102% $3,518 $3,518 $3,599 -$81 100% $3,518 -2% $3,518 -$81 - 47 Appeals: -
48 Administrative Appeal 1 5 $524 30% $1,725 $25,882 $7,860 $18,022 100% $1,725 229% $25,882 18,022 - 49 To City Planning Commission (CPC) $ 524 30% $1,725 - - - 100% $1,725 229% - - - Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3)

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
50 To City Council 4 $524 21% $2,458 $9,832 $2,096 $7,736 100% $2,458 369% $9,832 7,736 - 51 Billboard Amortization $ 524 30% $1,725 - - - 100% $1,725 229% - - - 52 Notification Fee: Appeals to Planning Commissio n 1 $524 65% $805 $805 $524 $281 100% $805 54% $805 281 - 53 Notification Fee: Appeals to City Council 1 $524 65% $805 $805 $524 $281 100% $805 54% $805 281 - 54 Requests: -
55 For Extension of Time of Approved Permit $ 393 125% $314 - - - 100% $314 -20% - - - 56 For Reconsideration of Existing Approval
5 0% of the
current base
report fee of
the permit
50% of the
current
base report
fee of the n/a policy - - - 100% 50% of the
current base
report fee of
the permit - - -
57 For General Plan Determination $ 917 85% $1,078 - - - 100% $1,078 18% - - - 58 For Written Determination by Zoning Administrat or $262 68% $384 - - - 100% $384 47% - - - 59 Business Tax Certificate 2 ,543 $35 72% $49 $124,016 $89,005 $35,011 100% $49 39% $124,016 $35,011 - 60 General Plan Amendment -
61 Notification Fee: Request for General Plan Amen dment $917 62 General Plan Amendment $ 3,406 59% $5,736 - - - 100% $5,736 68% - - - 63 New construction & Activity Surcharge -
64 Minor Permits involving the new construction of 25-49 units: $655 75% $876 - - - 100% $876 34% - - - 65 Minor Permits involving the new construction of 50-99 units: $985 81% $1,215 - - - 100% $1,215 23% - - - 66 Minor Permits involving the new construction of 100+ units: $1,310 77% $1,697 - - - 100% $1,697 30% - - - 67 Major Permits involving the new construction of 25-49 units: $1,179 57% $2,084 - - - 100% $2,084 77% - - - 68 Major Permits involving the new construction of 50-99 units: $1,780 72% $2,461 - - - 100% $2,461 38% - - - 69 Major Permits involving the new construction of 100+ units: $2,358 65% $3,629 - - - 100% $3,629 54% - - - 70 Minor Permits involving the new const of 10K - 49,999sq ft of non-res floor area $655 75% $876 - - - 100% $876 34% - - - 71 Minor Permits involving the new const of 50K sq ft + of non-res floor area $1,310 77% $1,697 - - - 100% $1,697 30% - - - 72 Major Permits involving the new const of 10K sq ft - 49,999sq ft of non-res floor area $1,179 57% $2,084 - - - 100% $2,084 77% - - - 73 Major Permits involving the new const of 50K sq ft + of non-res floor area $2,358 65% $3,629 - - - 100% $3,629 54% - - - Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3)

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
74 Major Permits involving an Extensive Impact Civ ic Activity: $1,179 36% $3,292 - - - 100% $3,292 179% - - - 75 Projects involving construction on a lot sloped 20% or more $1,500 97% $1,542 - - - 100% $1,542 3% - - - 76 Determination of Public Convenience or Necessit y (w/CUP) 7 $1,000 92% $1,090 $7,632 $7,000 $632 100% $1,090 9% $7,632 $632 - 77 Determination of Public Convenience or Necessit y (without CUP) $1,500 111% $1,356 - - - 100% $1,356 -10% - - - 78 Special Findings Fees for Complex Projects
$456 per set
of findings
beyond the
standard 29 $456 81% $561 $16,256 $13,224 $3,032 100% $561 23% $16,256 $3,032 - 79 Commence or Complete Work for which Permits are required by the Oakland Planning Code without first having obtained permits Penalty
Double
Fees 68 double fee n/a policy - - - 100% double fee - - - 80 Application Notification Fee -
81 Major Conditional Use Permit: $ 917
82 Major Variance: $ 917
83 Rezoning / Zoning Text Amendment $ 1,179
84 Development Agreement $ 917
85 Tentative Map $ 917
86 Request for General Plan Amendment $ 917
87 Private Access Easement: $ 917
88 Minor Variance: $ 917
89 Minor Conditional Use Permit $ 917
90 Appeals to City Council $ 524
91 Request for Environmental Review (CEQA / NEPA) $ 524 92 Parcel Map $ 917
93 Planned Unit Development: Preliminary Planning Commission Action $917 94 Planned Unit Development: Final Planning Commission Action $917 95 S-11 Site Development and Design Review: No Public $ 917 96 Appeals to Planning Commission $ 524
Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3)

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
97 Regular Design Review: $ 917
98 Accessory Signage for Civic Activities $ 131
99 Challenge to Negative Declaration/Environmental $ 524 100 Appeal of Director's Determination that EIR/EIS is R equired $524 101 Category III Creek Permit $ 524
102 Category IV Creek Permit $ 917
103 DTRAC Surcharge for scheduled items $ 655 82% $795 - - - 100% $795 21% - - - 104 NO - Show fee for Zoning Intake
P
er
Occurance 1 $66 49% $135 $135 $66 $69 100% $135 105% $135 $69 - 105 B. APPLICATIONS UNDER THE OAKLAND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (42512) - 106 Tentative Map (In Connection with Planned Unit Development or Use Permit) $6,550 101% $6,500 - - - 100% $6,500 -1% - - - 107 All Other Tentative Maps (Other than Condominium Con versions): - 108 Basic Fee 1 $6,550 101% $6,500 $6,500 $6,550 -$50 100% $6,500 -1% $6,500 -$50 - 109 Surcharge (Per Lot) P er Lot $131 74% $177 - - - 100% $177 35% - - - 110 Private Access Easement: -
111 Notification Fee: Private Access Easement
d
elete fee,
redundant $917 n/a n/a - - - n/a - - - 112 Private Access Easement $ 4,061 153% $2,652 - - - 100% $2,652 -35% - - - 113 Tentative Tract Map 7 $3,013 103% $2,914 $20,400 $21,091 -$691 100% $2,914 -3% $20,400 -$691 - 114 Parcel Map Waiver 9 $917 87% $1,056 $9,508 $8,253 $1,255 100% $1,056 15% $9,508 $1,255 - 115 Condominium Conversion: Parcel Map 9 $3,668 106% $3,451 $31,058 $33,012 -$1,954 100% $3,451 -6% $31,058 -$1,954 - 116 Condominium Conversion: Tentative Map $ 6,681 107% $6,221 - - - 100% $6,221 -7% - - - 117 Request for Extension of Time Limits 9 6 $393 125% $314 $30,157 $37,728 -$7,571 100% $314 -20% $30,157 -$7,571 - 118 Application Notification Fee -
119 Tentative Map $ 917
120 Parcel Map $ 917
121 Projects Involving Purchase of Condo Conversion Righ ts $655 75% $876 - - - 100% $876 34% - - - Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3) Delete - fee consolidated into one notification fee (fee #3)

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
122 C. REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (CEQA/NEPA) - 123 Request for Environmental Determination (If Project is Exempt) - 124 Standard Exemption such as 15301 and other exemption not requiring findings or a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA 437 $262 75% $349 $152,319 $114,494 $37,825 100% $349 33% $152,319 $37,825 - 125 Request for Environmental Review (If Project is exempt under California Code 15280, 15332, or other Exemption Requiring Findings)4 $917 89% $1,027 $4,110 $3,668 $442 100% $1,027 12% $4,110 $442 - 126 Request for Environmental Review (If Project is exempt but requires analysis and/or findings equivalent to an initial study) or an Environmental Assessment under NEPAMin. or 25% $1,703 87% $1,948 - - - 100% $1,948 14% - - - 127 Request for Environmental Review (If Project is Not Exempt) 2 - 128 Request for Environmental Review (If Project is Not Exempt) or an Environmental Assessment under NEPAMin. or 25% $1,703 63% $2,684 - - - 100% $2,684 58% - - - 129 Notification Fee: Request for Environmental Review or an Environmental Assessment under NEPA 3 $655 74% $889 $2,668 $1,965 $703 100% $889 36% $2,668 $703 - 130 Environmental Review Processing Fee-EIR/EIS Min. or 2 8% 3 $11,860 103% $11,513 $34,540 $35,580 -$1,040 100% $11,513 -3% $34,540 -$1,040 - 131 Challenge or Appeal of any Environmental Determination or a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA - 132 To City Planning Commission $ 655 33% $2,011 - - - 100% $2,011 207% - - - 133 To City Council $ 655 33% $2,011 - - - 100% $2,011 207% - - - 134 Notification Fee: Challenge to Negative Declara tion $655 33% $2,011 - - - 100% $2,011 207% - - - 135 Notification Fee: Appeal of Director's Determination that EIR is Required $655 33% $2,011 - - - 100% $2,011 207% - - - 136 Request for Notification for Environmental Determination/Review/Challenge/Appeal $655 99% $664 - - - 100% $664 1% - - - 137 Environmental Impact Data Collection, if EIR/EIS req uired $9,825 78% $12,598 - - - 100% $12,598 28% - - - 138 D. REQUEST FOR PLAN -
139 General Plan $ 786 83% $945 - - - 100% $945 20% - - - 140 Redevelopment Plan p lus mailing $766 81% $945 - - - 100% $945 23% - - - 141 E. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS -
142 Design Review Guidelines e ach $16 47% $34 - - - 100% $34 112% - - - 143 F. RETROFIT RIGHT PUBLICATION (cost per book) -
144 Retail (1-4 Copies) e ach $24 n/a $34 - - - 100% $34 41% - - - 145 Wholesale (5-39 Copies ) e ach $18 40% $45 - - - 100% $45 151% - - - 146 Wholesale (40-119 Copies) e ach $17 38% $45 - - - 100% $45 165% - - - 147 Wholesale (120+ Copies) e ach $15 33% $45 - - - 100% $45 201% - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
148 G. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
149 Private Subscription
Y
early
Subscription $53 52% $102 - - - 100% $102 92% - - - 150 H. OTHER PRINTED MATERIALS SPECIFICALLY REPRODUCED IN QUANTITY SUCH AS CENSUS ANALYSES AND OTHER INFORMATION DOCUMENTS Actual Cost
or $2
minimum $2 18% $11 - - - 100% $11 464% - - - 151 I. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -
152 Audio/Cassette Duplication -
153 Cassettes $ 3 27% $11 - - - 100% $11 276% - - - 154 Private Subscription P er Year $81 80% $102 - - - 100% $102 25% - - - 155 J. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION INFORMATION PACKAGE DOCUMENT package $16 142% $11 - - - 100% $11 -29% - - - 156 K. Annexation Fee -
157 Five (5) Acres or Less -
158 Application Fee $ 917 86% $1,062 - - - 100% $1,062 16% - - - 159 Additional Fees
P
er Hour or
Fraction
thereof $131 54% $245 - - - 100% $245 87% 160 Greater Than Five (5) Acres $ 24,759 97% $25,448 - - - 100% $25,448 3% - - - 161 LAFCO Application (for County) $ 5,240 79% $6,652 - - - 100% $6,652 27% - - - 162 Subsequent to LAFCO Determination
P
er Hour or
Fraction
thereof $131 54% $245 - - - 100% $245 87% - - - 163 L. PLAN CHECKING AND/OR PROCESSING OF APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT REQUIRED BY OAKLAND ZONING REGULATION, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND/OR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - 164 Consultation Services Requested or Preliminary Plan Review (One Hour Minimum) Per Hour or
Fraction
thereof $131 54% $245 - - - 100% $245 87% - - - 165 Consultation Services Requested or Preliminary Plan Review Plus $131/hr
over 3 60 $393 54% $734 $44,049 $23,580 $20,469 100% $734 87% $44,049 $20,469 - 166 Consultation Services Requested or Prelim. Plan Review for Major Projects 4 $1,703 57% $2,975 $11,900 $6,812 $5,088 100% $2,975 75% $11,900 $5,088 -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
167 Additional Plan Checking and/or Processing Required Due to Plan Deficiencies or Changes (Two Hour Minimum) Per Hour or
Fraction
thereof 23 $131 54% $245 $5,629 $3,013 $2,616 100% $245 87% $5,629 $2,616 - 168 Consultation Services or Plan Review Requested Outside Regular Hours (Two Hour Minimum) Per Hour or
Fraction
thereof 6 $191 57% $333 $1,999 $1,146 $853 100% $333 74% $1,999 $853 - 169 Major Projects contract services for permit review, plan check, environmental review and/or mitigation monitoring - 170 Associated fixed fees may be reduced by the City Manager provided that all City costs are coveredActual Costs - 171 M. WRITTEN DETERMINATION BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 1 $26 2 63% $413 $413 $262 $151 100% $413 58% $413 $151 - 172 N. ZONING CONFIRMATION LETTER -
173 Standard - No Research Required 2 0 $34 77% $44 $885 $680 $205 100% $44 30% $885 $205 - 174 Research Required 7 6 $131 74% $177 $13,453 $9,956 $3,497 100% $177 35% $13,453 $3,497 - 175 O. MILLS ACT -
176 Application Fee $ 524 n/a no data 100% $524
177 Inspection Fee 7 $131 54% $245 $1,713 $917 $796 100% $245 87% $1,713 $796 - 178 P. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING STAFF ATTENDANCE FEE (PER STAFF MEMBER REQUESTED BY PROJECT SPONSOR) - 179 Attendance at 1st Community Meeting
O
T Plan
Check
Hourly Rate $333 - - - 100% $333 n/a - - - 180 Attendance at 2nd Community Meeting
P
er Staff
Member $350 83% $422 - - - 100% $422 20% - - - 181 Attendance at 3rd Community Meeting
P
er Staff
Member $700 111% $633 - - - 100% $633 -10% - - - 182 Attendance at 4th (and subsequent) Community Meeting P
er Staff
Member
Plus $250
per hour
over 1st
hour Per
Staff
Member $300 47% $633 - - - 100% $633 - - -

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Planning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning DepartmentsPlanning & Zoning Departments 2013/20142013/2014 2013/20142013/2014
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
183 Q. SPECIAL DESIGN REVIEW -
184 Track One n ew $448 - - - 100% $448 - - - 185 Track Two n ew $566 - - - 100% $566 - - - Total User Fees $1,897,671 $1,571,257 $326,414 $1,897,671 $326,414 % of Full Cost 83% 17% 100% 21% -

Engineering Services
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Planning and Building Fees:
1 L) GRADING PERMIT (review and inspection)
2 Basic 3 0 1,179 $ 47% 2,493$ 74,791$ 35,370$ 39,421 $ 100% $2,493 111% 74,791 $ 39,421$ -$ 3 51 - 1,000 Cubic Yards 2 7 1,179 $ 39% 2,988$ 80,667$ 31,833$ 48,834 $ 100% $2,988 153% 80,667 $ 48,834$ -$ 4 1,001 - 2,000 Cubic Yards 3 ,791 $ 96% 3,932$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $3,932 4% -$ -$ -$ 5 2,001 - 10,000 Cubic Yards 2 5,541 $ 101% 5,481$ 10,962$ 11,082$ (120)$ 100% $5,481 -1% 10,962$ (120)$ -$ 6 Over 10,000 Cubic Yards 1 13,541 $ 142% 9,520$ 9,520$ 13,541$ (4,021)$ 100% $9,520 -30% 9,520 $ (4,021)$ -$ 7 Review of Materials Related to Request for Emergency
Grading Permit 917 $ 95% 970$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $970 6% -$ -$ -$ 8 Review of Plan Revisions
9 Regular Operating Hours Hourly 131 $ 75% 174$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $174 33% -$ -$ -$ 10 Outside of Working Hours Hourly 38 191 $ 73% 262$ 9,940$ 7,258$ 2,682 $ 100% $262 37% 9,940 $ 2,682$ -$ 11 M) WORK WITHOUT A GRADING PERMIT
12 Work Commenced Double All Fees -$ - $ n/a Double All Fees -$ -$ -$ 13 Re-Inspection Fee 3 93 $ 82% 480$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $480 22% -$ -$ -$ 14 U) CONSTRUCTION SITE MONITORING (DUST, NOISE, C.6,

STORM WATER)
15 Plan Review p er review 1,965 $ 76% 2,595$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $2,595 32% -$ -$ -$ 16 Maintenance Plan A nnually 396 $ 99% 400$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $400 1% -$ -$ -$ 17 Over 3 Inspections p er insp 99 $ 62% 160$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $160 62% -$ -$ -$ 18 Creek and Illicit Discharge Enforcement per insp 396 $ 99% 400$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $400 1% -$ -$ -$ 19 X) CREEK PROTECTION PERMIT
20 Category I - $ 45$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ 21 Category II 6 131 $ 94% 139$ 832$ 786$ 46 $ 100% $139 6% 832$ 46$ -$ 22 Category III 8 524 $ 77% 682$ 5,458$ 4,192$ 1,266 $ 100% $682 30% 5,458 $ 1,266$ -$ 23 Category IV (Up to 8 Hours) 4 1,048 $ 79% 1,331$ 5,325$ 4,192$ 1,133 $ 100% $1,331 27% 5,325 $ 1,133$ -$ 24 Over 8 Hours H ourly 131 $ 82% 160$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $160 22% -$ -$ -$ 25 Appeal of Determination to Building Official 3 93 $ 74% 532$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $532 35% -$ -$ -$ 26 Appeal to the Planning Commission 7 86 $ 76% 1,034$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $1,034 32% -$ -$ -$ 27 Inspection

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
28 Basic s /b flat 29 297 $ 74% 400$ 11,609$ 8,613$ 2,996 $ 100% $400 35% 11,609 $ 2,996$ -$ 29 Over 3 Inspections H ourly 1 99 $ 62% 160$ 160$ 99$ 61 $ 100% $160 62% 160 $ 61$ -$ 30 AA) REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REQUIRED FOR

PROJECTS LOCATED IN SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE
31 Permit Application
32 Basic 7 86 $ 77% 1,026$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $1,026 31% -$ -$ -$ 33 Over 6 Hours H ourly 131 $ 75% 174$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $174 33% -$ -$ -$ 34 Request for Waiver Application
35 Basic 7 86 $ 77% 1,026$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $1,026 31% -$ -$ -$ 36 Over 6 Hours H ourly 131 $ 75% 174$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $174 33% -$ -$ -$ 37 Peer Review C ost + 14% n/a policy -$ -$ - $ 100% Cost + 14% -$ -$ -$ 38 Revisions
39 Regular Operating Hours H ourly 131 $ 75% 174$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $174 33% -$ -$ -$ 40 Outside of Working Hours H ourly 191 $ 73% 262$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $262 37% -$ -$ -$ 41 G) PUSHCART FOOD VENDING
42 Application Processing 1 0 75 $ 120% 62$ 624$ 750$ (126)$ 100% $62 -17% 624 $ (126)$ -$ 43 Initial Permit Fee 1 0 455 $ 73% 624$ 6,244$ 4,550$ 1,694 $ 100% $624 37% 6,244 $ 1,694$ -$ 44 Permit Renewal Fee 1 3 455 $ 73% 624$ 8,118$ 5,915$ 2,203 $ 100% $624 37% 8,118 $ 2,203$ -$ 45 Late Fee
46 Assessed as a percentage of permit fee based on length of time after date of the renewal letter as follows:
47 30-60 Days 1 0% n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% 10% -$ -$ -$ 48 60-90 Days 2 0% n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% 20% -$ -$ -$ 49 After 90 Days 5 0% n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% 50% -$ -$ -$ 50 Legalizing Illegal Vendor 9 14 $ n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% $914 -$ -$ -$ 51 H) VEHICULAR FOOD VENDING PERMIT
52 Application Processing 1 1 137 $ 110% 125$ 1,374$ 1,507$ (133)$ 100% $125 -9% 1,374$ (133)$ -$ 53 Initial Permit Fee 1 1 1,822 $ 133% 1,374$ 15,112$ 20,042$ (4,930)$ 100% $1,374 -25% 15,112 $ (4,930)$ -$ 54 Permit Renewal Fee 1 4 1,822 $ 133% 1,374$ 19,233$ 25,508$ (6,275)$ 100% $1,374 -25% 19,233 $ (6,275)$ -$ 55 Late Fee

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
56 Assessed as a percentage of permit fee based on length of time after date of the renewal letter as follows:
57 30-60 Days 1 0% n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% 10% -$ -$ -$ 58 60-90 Days 2 0% n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% 20% -$ -$ -$ 59 After 90 Days 5 0% n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% 50% -$ -$ -$ 60 Legalizing Illegal Vendor 3 ,644 $ n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% $3,644 -$ -$ -$ 61 I) REVIEW OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE PERMIT
62 $1 to $5,000 Construction Valuation new category 1 1,441 $ 107% 1,349$ 1,349$ 1,441$ (92)$ 74% $1,000 1,000$ (441)$ 349$ 63 $5,001 to $10,000 Construction Valuation 1 1,441 $ 53% 2,698$ 2,698$ 1,441$ 1,257 $ 100% $2,698 2,698$ 1,257$ -$ 64 $10,001 to $50,000 Construction Valuation 3 1,441 $ 47% 3,046$ 9,139$ 4,323$ 4,816 $ 100% $3,046 9,139$ 4,816$ -$ 65 $50,001 to $100,000 Construction Valuation 1 4,361 $ 84% 5,184$ 5,184$ 4,361$ 823 $ 100% $5,184 5,184$ 823$ -$ 66 $100,001 to $500,000 Construction Valuation 3 6,961 $ 77% 9,063$ 27,188$ 20,883$ 6,305 $ 100% $9,063 27,188$ 6,305$ -$ 67 $500,001 - $5M Construction Valuation 1 25,761 $ 82% 31,364$ 31,364$ 25,761$ 5,603 $ 100% $31,364 31,364$ 5,603$ -$ 68 General Plan Surcharge (assessed on all P-JOB Permits) 7 0.1 0% 59% 0.17% 0$ 0$ 0 $ 100% 0.17% 0$ 0$ -$ 69 Extension of P-JOB Permit for work incomplete after one year 1 917 $ 101% 909$ 909$ 917$ (8)$ 100% $909 909$ (8)$ -$ 70 Review of Plan Revisions
71 Regular Operating Hours Hourly 2 131 $ 75% 174$ 349$ 262$ 87 $ 100% $174 349$ 87$ -$ 72 Outside of Working Hours Hourly 1 191 $ 73% 262$ 262$ 191$ 71 $ 100% $262 262$ 71$ -$ 73 T) INSPECTION OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE
74 Basic Fee
75 $1 to $100,000 new category 6 4,400 $ 88% 5,006$ 30,039$ 26,400$ 3,639 $ 100% 8.5% of ENR 30,039$ 3,639$ 76 $100,001 to $500,000 new category 3 26,600 $ 100% 26,694$ 80,081$ 79,800$ 281 $ 100% $8,500 + 8%
over $100,001 80,081$ 281$
77 $500,001+ new category 2 58,000 $ 103% 56,063$ 112,127$ 116,000$ (3,873)$ 100% $40,500 +

7.5% over
$500,001 112,127$ (3,873)$
78 Outside of Regular Working Hours Hourly 173 $ 72% 240$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $240 -$ -$ -$ Planning and Building User Fee Subtotal $560,656 $457,018 $103,638 # $560,307 $103,289 $349 % of Full Cost 82% 18% 18% 0%

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Public Works Fees:
79 A) PATH VACATION 1 2,096 $ 41% 5,154$ 5,154$ 2,096$ 3,058 $ 100% $5,154 5,154$ 3,058$ -$ 80 B) STREET VACATION
81 Summary Vacation 2 ,751 $ 55% 4,980$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $4,980 -$ -$ -$ 82 General Vacation 1 5,240 $ 102% 5,154$ 5,154$ 5,240$ (86)$ 100% $5,154 5,154$ (86)$ -$ 83 Notifications 1 917 $ 86% 1,060$ 1,060$ 917$ 143 $ 100% $1,060 1,060$ 143$ -$ 84 C) EASEMENT - DEDICATION OR VACATION
85 City Council Action 1 1,965 $ 39% 4,980$ 4,980$ 1,965$ 3,015 $ 100% $4,980 4,980$ 3,015$ -$ 86 City Engineer Action 2 917 $ 36% 2,564$ 5,128$ 1,834$ 3,294 $ 100% $2,564 5,128$ 3,294$ -$ 87 Shared Access Engineering Review 5 24 $ 29% 1,804$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $1,804 -$ -$ -$ 88 D) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
89 For Work Through Six Hours 4 786 $ 60% 1,311$ 5,246$ 3,144$ 2,102 $ 100% $1,311 5,246$ 2,102$ -$ 90 For Work After Six Hours H ourly 6 131 $ 69% 190$ 1,137$ 786$ 351 $ 100% $190 1,137$ 351$ -$ 91 E) ENCROACHMENT IN THE PUBLIC ROW OR PUBLIC
E

ASEMENT
92 City Engineer Action
93 New Encroachment 6 1 917 $ 51% 1,781$ 108,655$ 55,937$ 52,718 $ 100% $1,781 108,655$ 52,718$ -$ 94 Existing Encroachment 2 1,703 $ 54% 3,176$ 6,353$ 3,406$ 2,947 $ 100% $3,176 6,353$ 2,947$ -$ 95 Private Party bike rack installation 1 37 $ 2% 1,781$ 1,781$ 37$ 1,744 $ 4% $74 74$ 37$ 1,707$ 96 Encroachment for R3 Occupancy 2 5 524 $ 29% 1,781$ 44,531$ 13,100$ 31,431 $ 100% $1,781 44,531$ 31,431$ -$ 97 Amendment or Recission 3 262 $ 24% 1,084$ 3,251$ 786$ 2,465 $ 100% $1,084 3,251$ 2,465$ -$ 98 City Council Action 7 1,965 $ 39% 4,980$ 34,860$ 13,755$ 21,105 $ 100% $4,980 34,860$ 21,105$ -$ 99 F) TRACT MAP
100 Tentative Map (charged with Planning) 2 3,406 $ 91% 3,761$ 7,521$ 6,812$ 709 $ 100% $3,761 7,521$ 709$ -$ 101 Final Map 2 3,144 $ 54% 5,817$ 11,633$ 6,288$ 5,345 $ 100% $5,817 11,633$ 5,345$ -$ 102 Tentative Map - Each Lot over 5 2 62 $ 74% 354$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $354 -$ -$ -$ 103 Certificate of Correction 1 524 $ 45% 1,157$ 1,157$ 524$ 633 $ 100% $1,157 1,157$ 633$ -$ 104 Subdivision Improvement Agreement 1 0 917 $ 58% 1,593$ 15,932$ 9,170$ 6,762 $ 100% $1,593 15,932$ 6,762$ -$

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
105 Amended Final Map 5 24 $ 31% 1,709$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $1,709 -$ -$ -$ 106 Revisions to Final Map, Tentative Map, or SIA
107 Regular Operating Hours H ourly 2 131 $ 75% 174$ 349$ 262$ 87 $ 100% $174 349$ 87$ -$ 108 Overtime Hours H ourly 191 $ 73% 262$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $262 -$ -$ -$ 109 G) STREET DEDICATION 1 ,965 $ 39% 4,980$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $4,980 -$ -$ -$ 110 H) STREET NAME CHANGE
111 Application 1 ,965 $ 39% 4,980$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $4,980 -$ -$ -$ 112 Notifications 5 24 $ 44% 1,196$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $1,196 -$ -$ -$ 113 I) REVIEW OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PERMIT
114 $1 to $5,000 Construction Valuation new category 1 1,441 $ 107% 1,349$ 1,349$ 1,441$ (92)$ 74% $1,000 1,000$ (441)$ 349$ 115 $5,001 to $10,000 Construction Valuation 1 1,441 $ 53% 2,698$ 2,698$ 1,441$ 1,257 $ 100% $2,698 2,698$ 1,257$ -$ 116 $10,001 to $50,000 Construction Valuation 3 1,441 $ 47% 3,046$ 9,139$ 4,323$ 4,816 $ 100% $3,046 9,139$ 4,816$ -$ 117 $50,001 to $100,000 Construction Valuation 1 4,361 $ 84% 5,184$ 5,184$ 4,361$ 823 $ 100% $5,184 5,184$ 823$ -$ 118 $100,001 to $500,000 Construction Valuation 3 6,961 $ 77% 9,063$ 27,188$ 20,883$ 6,305 $ 100% $9,063 27,188$ 6,305$ -$ 119 $500,001 - $5M Construction Valuation 1 25,761 $ 82% 31,364$ 31,364$ 25,761$ 5,603 $ 100% $31,364 31,364$ 5,603$ -$ 120 General Plan Surcharge (assessed on all P-JOB Permits) 7 0.1 0% 59% 0.17% 0$ 0$ 0 $ 100% 0.17% 0$ 0$ -$ 121 Extension of P-JOB Permit for work incomplete after one year 1 917 $ 101% 909$ 909$ 917$ (8)$ 100% $909 909$ (8)$ -$ 122 Review of Plan Revisions
123 Regular Operating Hours Hourly 2 131 $ 75% 174$ 349$ 262$ 87 $ 100% $174 349$ 87$ -$ 124 Outside of Working Hours Hourly 1 191 $ 73% 262$ 262$ 191$ 71 $ 100% $262 262$ 71$ -$ 125 J) FRANCHISE APPLICATION OR RENEWAL 1 ,179 $ 21% 5,677$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $5,677 -$ -$ -$ 126 K) SPUR TRACK 1 ,179 $ 25% 4,631$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $4,631 -$ -$ -$ 127

N) CONSULTATION REQUESTED FOR PRELIMINARY
R

EVIEW OF IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS Hourly 131 $ 75% 174$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $174 -$ -$ -$ 128 O) MYLAR PLAN RETRIEVAL 5 $ 62% 8$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $8 -$ -$ -$ 129 P) CITY OF OAKLAND MAPS AND PLANS
130 2,400 Scale 5 8 $ 50% 15$ 76$ 38$ 38 $ 100% $15 76$ 38$ -$ 131 1,500 Scale 5 8 $ 50% 15$ 76$ 38$ 38 $ 100% $15 76$ 38$ -$ 132 Plans (copies larger than 11" x 17") 5 0 8 $ 50% 15$ 756$ 375$ 381 $ 100% $15 756$ 381$ -$

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
133 Q) S-11 ENGINEERING REVIEW 9 17 $ 131% 698$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $698 -$ -$ -$ 134 R) PARCEL MAP
135 Tentative Map 1 6 1,310 $ 97% 1,357$ 21,710$ 20,960$ 750 $ 100% $1,357 21,710$ 750$ -$ 136 Parcel Map 1 6 1,179 $ 74% 1,589$ 25,430$ 18,864$ 6,566 $ 100% $1,589 25,430$ 6,566$ -$ 137 Amended Tentative Map or Parcel Map 1 6 524 $ 93% 562$ 8,990$ 8,384$ 606 $ 100% $562 8,990$ 606$ -$ 138 Revisions to Tentative Map or Parcel Map
139 Regular Operating Hours Hourly 2 131 $ 75% 174$ 349$ 262$ 87 $ 100% $174 349$ 87$ -$ 140 Outside of Working Hours Hourly 191 $ 73% 262$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $262 -$ -$ -$ 141 Certification of Correction 5 24 $ 108% 484$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $484 -$ -$ -$ 142 S) EIR ENGINEERING REVIEW
143 Application 4 2 1,048 $ 75% 1,395$ 58,593$ 44,016$ 14,577 $ 100% $1,395 58,593$ 14,577$ -$ 144 Revisions H ourly 2 131 $ 75% 174$ 349$ 262$ 87 $ 100% $174 349$ 87$ -$ 145 T) INSPECTION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
146 Basic Fee
147 $1 to $100,000 new category 6 4,400 $ 88% 5,006$ 30,039$ 26,400$ 3,639 $ 100% 8.5% of ENR 30,039$ 3,639$ 148 $100,001 to $500,000 new category 3 26,600 $ 100% 26,694$ 80,081$ 79,800$ 281 $ 100% $8,500 + 8%
over $100,001 80,081$ 281$
149 $500,001+ new category 2 58,000 $ 103% 56,063$ 112,127$ 116,000$ (3,873)$ 100% $40,500 +

7.5% over
$500,001 112,127$ (3,873)$
150 Outside of Regular Working Hours Hourly 173 $ 72% 240$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $240 -$ -$ -$ 151 V) PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW AND PROCESSING
152 Outside of Regular Working Hours Hourly 191 $ 73% 262$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $262 -$ -$ -$ 153 W) LOT LINE MERGER AND ADJUSTMENT 9 262 $ 82% 320$ 2,881$ 2,358$ 523 $ 100% $320 2,881$ 523$ -$ 154

Y) PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION FOR SITE

DEVELOPMENT NOT RELATED TO ANY OTHER REQUIRED
PERMIT
155 Application 7 1 $ 117% 60$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $60 -$ -$ -$ 156 Plan Check H ourly 131 $ 75% 174$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $174 -$ -$ -$ 157 Inspection H ourly 99 $ 62% 160$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $160 -$ -$ -$

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
158 Z) OBSTRUCTION PERMITS
159 Short-term Permits (Max of 14 Days)
160 Metered Area p er day 8550 35 $ n/a policy 294,975 $ 294,975$ - $ 100% $35 294,975$ -$ -$ 161 Un-metered Area p er day 4770 17 $ n/a policy 82,283 $ 82,283$ - $ 100% $17 82,283$ -$ -$ 162 No Parking Anytime Sign per day 15048 3 $ n/a policy 46,649 $ 46,649$ - $ 100% $3 46,649$ -$ -$ 163 Long-term Permits (15-180 Day Maximum)
164 Metered Area 3 0 days 360 1,037 $ n/a policy 373,320 $ 373,320$ - $ 100% $1,037 373,320$ -$ -$ 165 Un-metered Area 3 0 days 1368 519 $ n/a policy 709,992 $ 709,992$ - $ 100% $519 709,992$ -$ -$ 166 AB) MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING REVIEW
167 Regular Operating Hours H ourly 2 131 $ 75% 174$ 349$ 262$ 87 $ 100% $174 349$ 87$ -$ 168 Outside of Working Hours H ourly 31 191 $ 73% 262$ 8,109$ 5,921$ 2,188 $ 100% $262 8,109$ 2,188$ -$ 169 AC) PAY TELEPHONE PERMIT
170 Application Processing 3 93 $ 108% 365$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $365 -$ -$ -$ 171 Annual Renewal 1 31 $ 127% 103$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $103 -$ -$ -$ 172 Late Renewal 2 62 $ 123% 214$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $214 -$ -$ -$ 173 Reclaiming Removed Pay Phone 5 94 $ 120% 496$ -$ -$ - $ 100% $496 -$ -$ -$ 174 AD) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC PROJECT REVIEW New - $ 21,798$ -$ -$ - $ 100% 10% of
consultant fee -$ -$ -$ 175 RECORDS MANAGEMENT FEE N ew 9.50% n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% 9.50% -$ -$ -$ 176 TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT FEE New 5.25% n/a Policy -$ -$ - $ 100% 5.25% -$ -$ -$

User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume Current Fee Current
Recovery % Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Increase from
Current
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
City of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of OaklandCity of Oakland Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433Engineering Services - 84421, 84432, 84433 2013/142013/14 2013/142013/14
CurrentCurrent CurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
Per UnitPer Unit Per UnitPer Unit
AnnualAnnual AnnualAnnual
177 Q) PROCESSING TREE REMOVAL PERMITS
178 Developed Property d elete $66 n/a n/a -$ -$ - $ n/a n/a n/a -$ -$ -$ 179 Undeveloped Property $ 131 48% $275 -$ -$ - $ 100% $275 110% -$ -$ -$ 180 R) PROCESSING UTILITY COMPANY EXCAVATION PERMIT $131 80% $163 -$ -$ - $ 100% $163 24% -$ -$ -$ Public Works User Fee Subtotal $2,199,454 $2,016,796 $182,658 # $2,197,398 $180,602 $2,056 % of Full Cost 92% 8% 100% 8% 0%
Combined Planning and Building and Public Works TotalCombined Planning and Building and Public Works TotalCombined Planning and Building and Public Works TotalCombined Planning and Building and Public Works Total $2,760,110$2,760,110$2,760,110$2,760,110 $2,473,814$2,473,814$2,473,814$2,473,814 $286,296$286,296 $286,296$286,296 $2,757,706$2,757,706$2,757,706$2,757,706 $283,891$283,891 $283,891$283,891 $2,405 $2,405 $2,405$2,405 % of Full Cost% of Full Cost% of Full Cost% of Full Cost 90% 10% 100% 10% 0% Footnotes:Fee #119) Recommended policy: for projects over $500,001 valuation, the developer may opt to pay on a deposit + hourly rate basis.Fee #174) this fee recovers the City's cost of reviewing and commenting on consultant reports. The average report size is $200,000, yielding a fee of 10% of the consultant contract.

Appendix A
Fee Comparison Analysis

City of Oakland Benchmark Study, 2014
Note: Building and plan check fees for San Jose are based on square Note: Building and plan check fees for San Jose are based on square footage. We have assumed a 500 sq. ft. garage. footage. We have assumed a single story dwelling.

Note: Building and plan check fees for San Jose are based on square footage. We have assumed a 50,000 square foot shell building. Note: Building and plan check fees for San Jose are based on square footage. We have assumed a 30,000 square foot dwelling. $849
$1,069
$480
$704
$1,178 $1,280
$0
$
200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Building Permit Alteration
$50,001 Valuation
$6,349 $6,529
$3,076
$7,186
$21,968
$7,622
$0
$
5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Building Permit New Construction
$1,000,001 Valuation
$29,349 $29,529
$11,876
$31,027
$109,968
$20,806
$0
$
20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
City of
O
akland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Building Permit New Construction
$
5,000,001 Valuation
$1,730 $2,131
$986
$1,757
$4,368
$1,854
$0
$
1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Building Permit Alteration
$200,001 Valuation

Note: Building and plan check fees for San Jose are based on square Note: Building plan check and permit fees for San Jose are based on square footage. We have assumed a 500 sq. ft. room addition. footage. We have assumed a 2,000 sq. ft. dwelling.

Note: Building plan check and permit fees for San Jose are based on square Note: Building plan check and permit fees for San Jose are based on square footage. We have assumed a 25 unit apartment complex. footage. We have assumed a 110 unit apartment complex. $764
$1,121 $1,120
$296
$766
$1,050
$0
$
200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Building Plan Review Alteration
$50,001 Valuation
$5,714 $8,380 $7,174
$3,018
$14,279
$6,180
$0
$
2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Building Plan Review New Construction
$1,000,001 Valuation
$1,557 $2,284
$2,300
$738
$2,839 $2,940
$0
$
500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Building Plan Review New Construction:
$200,001 Valuation
$26,414 $38,740
$27,694
$13,031
$71,479
$25,750
$0
$
10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Building Plan Review New Construction
$5,000,001 Valuation

$131
$101
$160
$122
$211
$412
$0
$
50 $100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Manufactured Home Plumbing System
$131
$250
$187
$152 $170
$206
$0
$
50 $100
$150
$200
$250
$300
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Standard Hourly Rates: Plan Review
$99
$202
$170 $152 $170
$206
$0
$
50 $100
$150
$200
$250
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Standard Hourly Rates: Inspection
2X 2x
9X
3X
2x 2x
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1 0
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Construction without a Permit (Penalty)
X Original Permit

San Jose: 10% digitizing surcharge is capped at $2,000 per project.

5.25% 5.25%

2.00%

8.00%

5.00%

10.00%

0.00%
2 .00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%
City of
Oakland
City of
Oakland
Proposed
City of San
Francisco
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
Technology Surcharge
$1
$4.30
$2.15 $2 5% of building
permit

1.25% of all dvl
fees
$0
$
1 $2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
City of
O
akland
Oakland Full
Cost
Oakland 50%
subsidy
City of
Sacramento
City of
Berkeley
City of San
Jose
General Plan Maintenance Surcharge per
$
1,000 valuation

Fee Category
Oakland -
Current
Oakland -
Proposed Fresno Anaheim Sacramento Long Beach San Jose
Document Fees
(order, invoice, notice,
declaration, lien release,
termination, etc.)
$297 for
preparation
per document
$512 for preparation
per document
$100 per hour, plus
100 administrative fee
Civil Citations: $100,
1st offense $200, 2nd
offense $500,
subsequent offenses
$400 (flat fee), except
Notice and Order to
Abate Public Nuisance
($800 flat fee)
Notice and Order to
Repair, Rehabilitate
or Demolish, $1,400+
$125 (flat fee) No document fees
Re‐‐ ‐‐inspection fees $396 (flat fee) $206 (flat fee) $100 per hour $196 (flat fee) Document fees only $157 (flat fee) $160 ‐183 (flat fee) Administrative Fees for
Contracted Work
(abatement)
31% or $693
minimum (per
instance or
contract,
whichever is
greater)
$1 - $5,000: 30%
$5,001-$10k: 25%
$10,001+ 20%
$100 per hour No fee 20% of abatement
costs $331 (flat fee) $98 per hour
Vacant/Foreclosed
Building Program Fees
$495 registration,
and inspection
fees (flat fee)
$737 registration,
and inspection
fees (flat fee)
$250 registration
(flat fee)
No specific program $150 per month, only
after 30 days
in violation
$155 (flat fee) $250 average per
violation (can
escalate to $1,000 per
violation)
Inspection Warrant $693 (flat fee) $1,330 (flat fee) Hourly rate No fee Hourly rate $428 (flat fee) Hourly rate General Hourly Rate $99 $125 $100 per hour $196 per hour n/a $103 per hour $98 per hour

CODE ENFORCEMENT FEE COMPARISON TABLE

Oakland Oakland San
Division / Fee Category Current Proposed Francisco Sacramento Berkeley San Jose Building Services - Administration
Fee #3 Filing $16 $13 $0 $152 $22 $2,880
Fee #5 Routing 55 55 $0
Fee #19 Records Management Fee (9.5%) 9,476 11,104 $300 2,000 Fee #20 Technology Enhancement Fee (5.25%) 5,237 6,136 $1,995 $3,778 $5,395 Subtotal $14,784 $17,308 $2,295 $3,930 $5,417 $4,880
Building Services - Inspection
Fee #19/20 Inspection $29,349 $29,529 $11,876 $33,256 $107,900 $66,950 Fee #60a Electrical Inspection - New Construction n/a 7,382 $7,204 $3,750 $5,000 included above Fee #60b Mechanical Inspection - New Construction n/a 2,953 $4,783 $3,750 $5,000 included above Fee #60c Plumbing Inspection - New Construction n/a 4,429 $5,535 $3,750 $5,000 included above Fee #77 Plumbing Inspection of New Apartments 9,900 n/a n/a Fee #96 Cooling System 2,150 n/a n/a 4,375
Fee #103 Furnace 2,150 n/a n/a 4,375
Fee #148 Electrical Inspection of New Apartments 9,900 n/a n/a Fee #218 General Plan Surcharge 5,000 21,500 $0 $10,000 $5,395 3,348 Subtotal $58,449 $65,793 $29,398 $63,256 $128,295 $70,298 Building Services - Plan Check
Fee #2 Plan Check $26,414 $38,978 $27,694 $13,968 $70,135 $10,080 Fee #27 Site Plan Review 917 658 $1,870 $4,988 2,940
Fee #28 Parking Review - 1st 4 Spaces 262 462 n/a
Fee #32 Parking Review 41-120 Spaces 524 838 n/a
Subtotal $28,117 $40,936 $29,564 $18,956 $70,135 $13,020 Engineering
Fee #4 Grading Permit (assume 1,500 cy) 3,791 3,932 2,432 Fee #15 Construction Site Monitoring Plan Review 1,965 2,595 1,870 Fee #16 Construction Site Monitoring Inspection 396 400 $2,250 $4,500 748 Fee #82 Tentative Map $3,406 $3,761 $1,000 $5,453
Fee #83 Final Map 3,144 5,817 $9,050 7,925
Fee #99 Review of Infrastructure 4,361 5,184 $6,375 3,875 Fee #125 Environmental Impact Report 1,048 1,395 $48,768 $25,000 $5,068 11,875 Fee #130 Inspection of Infrastructure ($100,000 val) 0 8,500 $6,375 3,875 Subtotal $18,111 $31,584 $48,768 $41,000 $24,071 $32,600 Planning and Zoning
Fee #25 Design Review Major Project $2,358 $2,649 $13,474 $17,500 $11,284 $3,000 Fee #68 New Construction Activity Surcharge 1,780 2,461 $6,880 Fee #106 Tentative Map 6,550 6,500 $13,474 $25,000 $10,171 7,370 Subtotal $10,688 $11,610 $33,828 $42,500 $21,455 $10,370 TOTAL $130,148 $167,230 $143,853 $169,642 $249,373 $131,168 Fee Comparison
50 Unit Condominium Complex
Wood Frame, $5,000,000 construction valuation

General Plan Maintaintenance fee survey
Bakersfield $78 fee on all new building permits
Belmont $2.50 per $1,000 valuation
Berkeley 5% surcharge against building permits
Brentwood $211.62 per dwelling unit (fee only charged against residential) Concord $1 per $1,000 valuation
Corona 2.2% surcharge against building permits
Daly City $5 per $1,000 valuation
Davis $2 per $1,000 valuation
Elk Grove $0.275 per $1,000 valuation
Emeryville $0.50 per $1,000 valuation
Fairfield $5 per $1,000 valuation, excluding solar
Folsom 3% surcharge against development fees
Fremont 15% surcharge against building permits
Galt $3.60 per $1,000 valuation
Garden Grove $2 plus $1.75 per $1,000 valuation (also covers cultural arts) Healdsburg $0.28 per $1 of planning revenue
Lakewood $0.85 per $1,000 valuation
Lemoore $0.72 per $1,000 valuation
Long Beach 3.1% of development related fees
Los Angeles 3% surcharge against development fees
Marin County 10.5% surcharge against development fees
Modesto $0.26 per $1,000 valuation
Monterey Park $2 per $1,000 valuation
Morgan Hill 5% of building permit and planning fees
Novato 10% of building permit fees
Oakdale $2.46 per $1,000 valuation
Oakland Current $1 per $1,000 valuation
Oakland Full Cost $4.3 per $1,000 valuation
Oakland Full Cost 6% surcharge against building and planning fees Oakland 50% Subsidy $2.15 per $1,000 valuation
Orange $0.50 per $1,000 valuation
Palo Alto $0.51 per $1,000 valuation
Paradise 12% of building permit fee

Palm Springs $0.61 per $1,000 valuation
Pleasanton $250 per planning application
Redwood City $0.50 per $1,000 valuation
Richmond $0.68 per $1,000 valuation
Riverside 10% of all development related fees
Sacramento $2.00 per $1,000 valuation
San Diego $88 per development plan check
San Jose 1.25% of all development permit fees
San Rafael 17% of building permit fee
San Ramon $3 per $1,000 valuation
Santa Barbara 11% of building permit fee
Santa Cruz $1.35 per $1,000 valuation
Santa Paula $0.51 per sq ft. of new construction, only projects > 500 sq ft.

Stockton $2 per $1,000 valuation
Sunnyvale $5 per $1,000 valuation, excluding residential remodels Tiburon 10% of building permit fee
Truckee $3.10 added to building permit fee
Ukiah 15% surcharge against building fees
Vallejo 7% surcharge against building fees
Whittier $2 per $1,000 valuation
Yolo County $2.70 per $1,000 of valuation on projects over $50,000

Attachment C Grand Jury Plan Check
Fee_PBD-combined
Final Audit Report 2022-10-06
Created: 2022-10-06
By: Albert Merid ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAHAIjQPR_Womx-EtysYV7OtSBp8hwlyrV "Attachment C Grand Jury Plan Check Fee_PBD-combined" Hist ory
Document created by Albert Merid ([email protected]) 2022-10-06 - 10:42:07 PM GMT- IP address: 209.232.103.105 Document emailed to William Gilchrist ([email protected]) for signature 2022-10-06 - 10:42:34 PM GMT
Email viewed by William Gilchrist ([email protected]) 2022-10-06 - 10:46:05 PM GMT- IP address: 174.242.71.182 Document e-signed by William Gilchrist ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022-10-06 - 10:48:04 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 174.242.71.182 Agreement completed.
2022-10-06 - 10:48:04 PM GMT