Riverside Dev Fees Report — Riverside City Council, March 11, 2025

Development Fees and Charges Study
Report of F indings

City of Riverside , CA
FEBRUARY 5, 2025

MGT.us

PAGE 1

CITY OF RIVERSIDE

DEVELOPMENT FEES AND CHARGES STUDY
FEBRUARY 5, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 Study Scope and Objectives ............................................................................................... 2 Study Findings ..................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 6 Hourly Rates ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Time Spent ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Fee Calculations and Revenue Projections .................................................................................................... 7 Legal, Economic & Policy Considerations ...................................................................................................... 7 USER FEE SUMMARIES BY DEPARTMENT ................................................................... 9 Community Development ....................................................................................................... 9 Building & Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Planning ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Comparative Data .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Disproportionate Impact ............................................................................................................................... 11 Building User Fee Summary Sheet ....................................................................................... 12 Planning User Fee Summary Sheet ...................................................................................... 19 Peer Fee Comparison – Building & Safety ............................................................................ 23 Peer Fee Comparison – Planning ......................................................................................... 24 Public Works ....................................................................................................................... 25 Engineering .................................................................................................................................................... 25 Refuse ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 Comparative Data .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Disproportionate Impact ............................................................................................................................... 26 Engineering User Fee Summary Sheet .................................................................................. 27 Peer Fee Comparison - Engineering ..................................................................................... 35 Parks, Recreation and Community Services ......................................................................... 37 Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 37 Comparative Data .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Recommendations Going Forward........................................................................................ 39

PAGE 2

Executive Summary
Introduction
MGT is pleased to present the City of Riverside with this summary of findings for the recently updated fees and charges study for related city departments.

The City of Riverside had not had an external cost of service study performed since 2016. The City contracted with MGT in May of 2021 to perform a cost- of-service study using fiscal year 2020-2021 budgeted figures, staffing, and operational information.

After MGT completed the cost analysis for the departments’ fees and charges, the final phase of the study, including fee recommendations and presentation to council, was put on hold by the City. In 2023, the City elected to have their own staff, with trai ning and guidance from MGT, update MGT’s costing models with fiscal year 2023 -2024 budgeted expenditures and salaries/benefits, and 2023 annual volume statistics. The findings in this report represent a combination of MGT’s original cost analysis and the C ity’s updates. Note that the findings for non-development departments and divisions were presented in April 2024. This report represents the updated cost analysis for development departments and division, as noted below.

This report is the culmination of an extensive study conducted by MGT in collaboration with the City’s management and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge all management and staff who participated in this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to its success.

Study Scope and Objectives
This report includes the study conducted for the development-related fee for service activities within the following departments:
 Community Development:
o Building & Safety
o Planning
 Public Works:
o Engineering
o Refuse
 Parks, Recreation and Community Services
o Administration/Plan Check fees
The study was performed under the general direction of the Finance Department with the participation of representatives from each department. The primary goals of the study were to:
 Determine the City's costs to provide specific fee-related services.  Determine whether there are any opportunities to implement new fees.

PAGE 3
 Identify service areas where the City might adjust fees to better reflect the full cost of services or to subsidize fees with general fund revenue to reflect other economic or policy considerations.
 Develop fiscal projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees.  Provide comparative data for what neighboring cities are charging for similar services.  Review potential disproportionate impact of existing and recommended City fees and charges on sectors of the community and recommend mitigating actions to ensure/enhance equity in the application of City fees.

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 restricted and general fund revenues.

Study Findings
The study's primary objective was to provide the City's decision makers with the basic data needed to make informed pricing decisions. This report details the full cost of each service for which a fee is charged and presents proposed fees and fiscal projections based on recommended cost recovery levels. The fee analysis adheres to Proposition 26 which is based on the "estimated reasonable cost of providing a service". Recommendations were based upon careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis, historical cost recovery levels, and market comparisons.

The exhibit on the following page displays the costs and projections of each department/division into the following categories:

Column A, User Fee Costs – This column represents what the actual cost is for each of the departments to provide annual user fee services based on the annual volume statistics. In total, this study evaluated $11,099,434 in costs to provide development user fee services. It is this amount that was the focus of this study and represents the total potential for user fee -related revenues for the City.

Column B, Current Revenues – This column represents what the City is currently recovering in revenue for these same services based on the annual volume statistics . Based on current fee recovery levels, the city receives fee-related cost recovery in the amount equal to $7,777,191 and is experiencing an overall 70% cost recovery level. Cost analysis of individual fees for each department may be found in subsequent sections of this report.

Column C, Current Subsidy – Current fee levels recover 70% of full cost, leaving 30%, or $3,322,243, to be funded by other sources. This subsidy represents an opportunity for an updated and more focused cost recovery effort by the City for fee-related services.

Column D, Recommended Recovery – City Staff recommend phasing in 100% cost recovery for most development-related fees over a two-year period. In the first year (remainder of FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26), staff recommend limiting increasing fees to no more than approximately 80% of costs, except for fees that: 1) were already recovering over 80% of costs (proposed to be maintained at current recovery rate), 2) currently recover over 100% of costs (proposed to be reduced to 100% cost recovery), or 3)
where adjustments would otherwise result in a lower
equivalent fee to applicants if reduced to 80 percent . Beginning in FY 2026/27, fees would increase to recover 100% of costs. This phased-in approach helps minimize sharp fee increases

PAGE 4
in one year, by staggering increased fees to recover costs over a two-year period. It is estimated that adoption of the recommended fees would increase cost recovery to $10,992,928 by the second year of implementation. This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to 99%.

Column E, Increased Revenue – Assuming activity levels remain relatively static, approximately $3,215,737 in additional cost recovery could be received by the City by the second year of implementation. This would represent a 41% increase over the amounts currently being collected for these activities by the City on an annualized basis.

PAGE 5
(A) Full Cost
User Fee Department User Fee
Services
Community Development
Building and Safety 4,659,728$ 3,713,600$ 80% 946,128$ 20% 4,192,290$ 90% 478,690$ 4,659,728$ 100% 946,128$ Planning 1,929,291$ 1,202,682$ 62% 726,609$ 38% 1,492,953$ 77% 290,271$ 1,822,785$ 94% 620,103$ Public Works
Engineering and Maintenance 4,479,117$ 2,860,909$ 64% 1,618,208$ 36% 3,701,894$ 83% 840,985$ 4,479,117$ 100% 1,618,208$ Parks, Recreation, & Comm Svcs
Plan Check Fees 31,298$ -$ 0% 31,298$ 100% 25,038$ 80% 25,038$ 31,298$ 100% 31,298$ Totals: 11,099,434$ 7,777,191$ 70% 3,322,243$ 30% 9,412,175$ 85% 1,634,984$ 10,992,928$ 99% 3,215,737$ Recommended
(Second Year of Phase in)
(F) Cost Recovery
Policy
(G) Increased
Revenue
City of Riverside
User Fee Cost & Revenue Analysis
FY 2024-2025
(C) Current Subsidy
(B) Current
Revenue
Current Recommended
(First Year of Phase in)
(D) Cost Recovery
Policy
(E) Increased
Revenue

PAGE 6

Methodology
A cost-of-service study is comprised of two basic elements:
 Hourly rates of staff providing the service.
 Time spent providing the service.

The product of the hourly rate calculation and the time spent yields the cost of providing the service.

Hourly Rates
The hourly rate methodology used in this study builds indirect costs into city staff hourly salary and benefit rates to arrive at fully burdened hourly rates. Fully burdened hourly rates are a mechanism used to calculate the total cost of providing servic es. Total cost is generally recognized as the sum of the direct cost together with a proportionate share of allowable indirect costs. The proper identification of all costs (including labor, operating expense, department administration and citywide support) as “direct” or “indirect” is crucial to the determination of the total cost of providing services.

Direct costs are typically defined as those that can be identified specifically to a particular function or activity, including the labor of persons working directly on the specific service for which the fee is charged, and possibly materials or supplies those people use for the task. Indirect costs are those that support more than one program area and are not easily identifiable to specific activities. Examples of indirect costs are: 1) departmental administrative and support staff, 2) training and education time, 3) public counter and telephone time, 4) some service and supply costs, and 5) citywide overhead costs from outside of the department as identified in the City’s cost allocation plan.

MGT’s hourly rate calculation methodology includes the following:

Personnel Services Analysis – each staff classification within the department or division is analyzed in the study. The first burden factor is comprised of compensated absences such as vacation/holidays/sick leave days taken in a year’s time. Staff classifications are then categorized as either direct (operational) or indirect (administrative or supervisory) labor. In some cases, a classification will have both direct and indirect duties. The total indirect portion of staff cost is incorporated into hourly overhead rates.

Indirect Cost Rate – a ratio of indirect cost to direct labor (salaries plus benefits) is established.

There are three elements of indirect cost incorporated, including:
 Indirect Labor – includes total compensation, administrative and supervisory staff costs.  Other Operating Expenses – most services and supplies are included as a second layer of indirect cost and are prorated across all fees and services. There are some service and supply expenses classified as “allowable direct ”. Some examples of these are professional services expenses, or sports supplies. These allowable direct expenses would be directly associated with specific fees or programs, as opposed to being allocated across all activities through the indirect overhead.  External Indirect Allocations – this represents the prorated portion of citywide overhead (from the City’s cost allocation plan) which is attributable to the service for which the fee is charged.

PAGE 7
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates – incorporates all the elements that comprise the hourly rates used in this cost analysis.
 Each direct or operational staff classification is listed, together with the average annual salary.
 The hourly salary rate is calculated by taking the annual salary of an employee and dividing by 2,080 available productive hours in a year.
 The benefit rate reflects the average benefit rate as a percentage of the salary rate.

Multiplying this percentage by the hourly salary rate determines the benefit rate to be included in the fully burdened rate.
 The overhead rate is derived by multiplying the internal and external indirect cost rates against the salary plus benefit rates.

The total combines the salary, benefits , and overhead rates. This is the fully burdened rate for each staff classification. MGT prepared indirect overhead rates and corresponding hourly rate calculations using FY 2020-21 budgeted expenditures, and City staff updated the rates using FY 2023-2024 budgeted expenditures.

Time Spent
Once fully burdened hourly rates were developed for city staff, the next step in the process was to identify staff time spent directly on each of the user fee activities. Each staff person involved in the user fee services identified time spent to complete each task associated with all user fee services. Annual volume statistics were also gathered in order to develop total annual workload information. This information is provided in detailed user fee workbooks which were provided to the City upon completion of the study.

Fee Calculations and Revenue Projections
Given this information, MGT was able to calculate the cost of providing each service, both on a per-unit and total annual basis (per -unit cost multiplied by annual volume equals total annual cost). As mentioned above, costs were calculated by multiplying per -unit time estimates by the hourly labor rates; additional operating expenses directly associated with certain services were also added in. Finally, if other departments or divisions provided support into certain user fee activities, this time was accounted for and added into the analysis as a crossover support activity.

Full costs are then compared to current fees/revenues collected, and subsidies (or over - recoveries) are identified.

User fee summaries by department may be seen in in the next section of this report.

Legal, Economic & Policy Considerations
Calculating the true cost of providing city services is a critical step in the process of establishing user fees and corresponding cost recovery levels. Although it is an important factor, other factors must also be given consideration. City decision makers must also consider the effects that establishing fees for services will have on the individuals purchasing those services, as well as the community as a whole.

The following legal, economic and policy issues help illustrate these considerations.  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

PAGE 8
legislation. California voters approved Proposition 26 in November of 2010, which defined “taxes” as “any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government” subject to seven exceptions. Most of the exceptions require that the City charge a fee which does not exceed the reasonable cost to the City to provide the service for which the fee is charged. Thus, if the fee exceeds the reasonable cost of service, it may be considered a “tax” which must be approved by the voters. We have calculated each fee to recover no more than the reasonable cost of each service so that none of the fee adjustments recommended herein will be considered taxes under Proposition 26.

Additionally, it should be noted that some fees (e.g., certain animal control fees or oversize permit fees) may be capped by state law and may not change, regardless of any cost analysis performed.
 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.  Community benefit - The Council may wish to subsidize some user fees in order to reflect policy considerations which supersede co st recovery. For example, m any Community Services fees have very moderate cost recovery levels. Some programs are provided free of charge or for a minimal fee regardless of cost. Youth and senior programs tend to have the lowest recovery levels. Miscellaneous classes tend to have a moderate cost recovery level and adult sports programs typically have a higher cost recovery level.  Private benefit - If a user fee primarily benefits the fee payer, we recommend the fee be 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.
 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.  Managing demand - For those fees which are not subject to pure cost recovery limitations, other market considerations may inform recommended fee levels. Elasticity of demand is a factor in pricing certain city services; increasing the price of some services results in a reduction of demand for those services, and vice versa.  Competition - Certain services, such as recreation classes, may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. Furthermore, if the City's fees are too low, demand enjoyed by private-sector competitors could be adversely affected.
 Incentives - Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as a youth sports program or the issuance of a water heater permit.  Comparative Data - One additional tool that many agencies use when considering how to establish fees for services is a comparison of what other agencies are charging for similar services. As part of this study, MGT collected fee schedules from surrounding area cities and extracted a sampling of fees to compare with fees charged by the City of Riverside.

The City’s Executive Steering Committee selected five neighboring agencies that would provide the best comparison. The fees to compare were selected by the departments with guidance from MGT. The results of the comparative survey may be found for each department within their respective summary sections.

PAGE 9
User Fee Summaries by Department
Community Development
The user fee/cost analyses for this department mirrors the structure of City’s fee schedule and was developed separately for each division:
 Building and Safety
 Planning
Fees are charged in a variety of ways including:
 Flat (or fixed) fees – the fee is always the same, regardless of size or complexity of the service provided in each instance.
 Per square (or linear) foot – the fee is calculated based on the size of the project under review.
 Hourly (or time-and-materials) – city staff track time and materials expenses, and fees are calculated to recover actual costs.
 Actual cost – this fee is charged to recover consultant costs as billed to the City.  Percentage of permit – the fee is calculated as a percentage of the original permit fee.

Building & Safety
Building permit and plan check fees benefit individuals and the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. The City’s policy is to generally set fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with providing fee -for-service activitie s. City staff recommend t his cost recover policy to be phased in over two years.

Within the Building & Safety division, current fees recover 80% of costs to provide services for which fees are charged , l eaving 2 0% to be subsidized by other funding sources. This 2 0% represents a total dollar amount of $ 946,128 annually. Staff recommends increasing recovery levels to 100 % to be phased in over two years . Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments should result in additional annual revenues of $ 946,128 by the second year . Building & Safety restructured some of their fee categories to better reflect the current process, staffing levels, and to be a more user -friendly fee schedule, such as moving building permit and inspection from a valuation to a square-foot model.

The Building analysis included the following approach:
 MGT developed a fully burdened hourly rate and applied it to the average time spent performing services that were listed as fixed price permits. Subtracting the cost of fixed price permits from the total cost of the division, we arrive at the cost of variable price (construction) permits. Dividing this figure by the square footage of projects permitted, we arrive at a cost per square foot for plan review and a cost per square foot f or inspections.
 Total cost – Cost of fixed price permits = Cost of variable price permits. Construction permits have an analysis supplied by the Building division of how each position’s effort is dedicated to plan review and inspection of construction permits. “Plan review” covers

PAGE 10
all activities related to the approval of the building plans and incorporates the cross- support costs from the permit division for additional time spent in the initial intake of the permit, and Engineering and Planning cross support for their approval of the plans. “Inspection” covers all activities to confirm that construction is according to approved plans and to close out the permit when work is completed. Additional contractor costs were also incorporated where appropriate.

The following new fees are proposed for institution:
 Mechanical Permits – Nine (9) new fees were added to the mechanical permits fee section. They are commercial spray booth , AC fan coil, evaporative cooler, commercial cooking equipment, fire/smoke damper, wall heater, clothes dryer (res.), clothes dryer (comm.) and decorative fireplace.
 Plumbing Permits – Seventeen (17) new fees were added to the plumbing permits fee section. They are dwelling re-pipe (partial), add/alter gas piping, new gas service, water closet, urinal, tub/shower, clothes washer, jacuzzi tub, floor sink/drain, gravity grease interceptors, septic tank system demolition, sump pumps, pressure regulator, swimming pool piping/repairs, solar or hydronic systems, and other fixtures not otherwise specified.  Electrical Permits – Nine (9) new fees were added to the electrical permits fee section.

They are AC heat pumps, other devices not specified, EV charger (residential), EV charger (commercial), lighting standard, light switches and occupancy sensors, dedicated circuit, lighting fixtures, and illuminated sign-wall mounted.
 Miscellaneous Permits – Seventeen (17) new fees were added to the miscellaneous permits fee section. They are building plan check (hourly), building inspection (hourly), temporary certificate of occupancy request, temporary power release request, solar PV residential > 15 kw, solar PV commercial > 50 kw, expedited solar PV system, commercial demising walls/partitions, residential garage conversion, residential windows and skylights, swimming pool fiberglass/vinyl, ponds/fountains, shell only, foundation onl y, residential foundation repair/seismic retrofit , membrane structures/canopies, and structures other than buildings.

The User Fee Summary Sheet following this narrative provides further details of MGT’s fee analysis for Building. The recommended fee and charges amount listed reflect the recommended amounts to be implemented in the second year assuming 100% cost recovery.

Planning
The Planning division services benefit the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. The City’s policy is to generally - but with some exceptions (Historic Preservation Fees and Minor Temporary Use Permits) - set fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with providing fee-for-service activities. City staff recommend this cost recover policy to be phased in over two years.

Within the Planning division, current fees recover 6 2% of related fee -for-service costs. A combination of fee increases and decreases are recommended, generating a net $ 620,103 additional annual revenue by the second year.

Highlights of the Planning fee analysis are provided below:

PAGE 11
 New Fees– Six (6) new fees are proposed to be added to the planning fee schedule. They are environmental CEQA review–minor scope , certificate of appropriateness (over the counter, administrative, board), annexation, and reasonable accommodation fee.  Fee Removals – Seven (7) fees are recommended for removal from the current planning fee schedule. They are d ay care permit, environmental initial study (new development), environmental review new development (completed by city) environmental review existing development (completed by city), parcel map /waiver of parcel map new application, parcel map revision, administrative sign review, and landscape/irrigation-minor.

The User Fee Summary Sheet following this narrative provides further details of MGT’s fee analysis for Planning. The recommended fee and charges amount listed reflect the recommended amounts to be implemented in the second year assuming 100% cost recovery for most fees.

Comparative Data
Surveys showing a selected group of Building and Planning fees in comparison to neighboring agencies can be found following this narrative. Overall, the department fees are within the range of their peers.

Disproportionate Impact
Community Development’s fees are primarily charged to developers and business owners. The department did not identify any fees that may present a disproportionate impact on low-income or other sectors of the community.

PAGE 12
Building User Fee Summary Sheet

PAGE 13

PAGE 14

PAGE 15

PAGE 16

PAGE 17

PAGE 18

City of Riverside
Building & Safety
FY 2024-25
Service Name Fee Description Annual
Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current
Recovery % Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Annual
Revenue2
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RES GARAGE CONVERSION (first 400 s.f., $50 s.f. each 100 s.f. there New Sq Foot -$ 629$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 629$ -$ -$ -$ COM RE-ROOF - OVERLAYS (each 35,000 s.f.) Sq Foot 29 505$ 484$ 104% 14,029$ 14,645$ (616)$ 100% 484$ 14,029$ (616)$ -$ COM RE-ROOF - TEAR OFF AND RE-ROOF (each 35,000 s.f.) Sq Foot 89 550$ 581$ 95% 51,667$ 48,906$ 2,762$ 100% 581$ 51,667$ 2,762$ -$ COM RE-ROOF - TEAR OFF AND NEW SHEATHING (each 35,000 s.f.) Sq Foot 9 640$ 750$ 85% 6,749$ 5,756$ 993$ 100% 750$ 6,749$ 993$ -$ RES WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS - NEW/CHANGE OUT New Fl at Fee -$ 218$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 218$ -$ -$ -$ STORAGE RACKS (first 500 l.f. add $50 per l00 l.f. thereafter) Per I.f. 16 501$ 616$ 81% 9,863$ 8,016$ 1,847$ 100% 616$ 9,863$ 1,847$ -$ RES DEMOLITION (Per Structure ) Per Structure 42 119$ 144$ 83% 6,041$ 4,998$ 1,043$ 100% 144$ 6,041$ 1,043$ -$ COM DEMOLITION (Per Structure ) Per Structure 13 362$ 363$ 100% 4,717$ 4,706$ 11$ 100% 363$ 4,717$ 11$ -$ SWIMMING POOL FIBERGLASS/VINYL New Fl at Fee -$ 460$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 460$ -$ -$ -$ RES SWIMMING POOLS/SPAS (first 800 s.f, add $30 per 100 sq. ft th Sq Foot 84 550$ 581$ 95% 48,765$ 4 6,200$ 2,565$ 100% 581$ 48,765$ 2,565$ -$ COM SWIMMING POOLS/SPAS (first 1000 s.f., add $30 each 100 s. Sq Foot 2 1,309$ 1,306$ 100% 2,612$ 2 ,618$ (6)$ 100% 1,306$ 2,612$ (6)$ -$ PONDS/FOUNTAINS (each) New Fl at Fee -$ 242$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 242$ -$ -$ -$ MOVED BUILDING (each) Flat Fee 1 1,249$ 1,282$ 97% 1,282$ 1,249$ 33$ 100% 1,282$ 1,282$ 33$ -$ SITE IMPROVEMENTS (first 3,000 s.f. add $100 each 3000 s.f. there Flat Fee 64 1,250$ 1,234$ 101% 78,952$ 8 0,000$ (1,048)$ 100% 1,234$ 78,952$ (1,048)$ -$ SHELL ONLY (60% of Bui l di ng Permi t Fee) New Fee -$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% -$ -$ -$ -$ FOUNDATION ONLY (25% of Bui l di ng permi t Fee) New Fee -$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% -$ -$ -$ -$ RES FOUNDATION REPAIR/SEISMIC RETROFIT New Fl at Fee -$ 242$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 242$ -$ -$ -$ MEMBRANE STRUCTURES/CANOPIES (each) New Fl at Fee -$ 314$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 314$ -$ -$ -$ STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDINGS (each) New Fl at Fee -$ 532$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 532$ -$ -$ -$ Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations

PAGE 19

Planning User Fee Summary Sheet

PAGE 20

PAGE 21

PAGE 22

PAGE 23
Peer Fee Comparison – Building & Safety

Activity Riverside Current Fee Riverside Proposed Fee Anaheim Corona Ontario County of Riverside Long Beach Moreno Valley Pasadena 5,000 SF (Construction Type:

IIA classified as CBC group A-
2) one story restaurant on a
25,000 SF lot
Valuation - $1,231,400
Valuation Model -
$4,035
Square Foot Model -
$5,700
Square Foot Model -
$7,511
Square Foot Model -
$16,079
Valuation Model -
$6,456
Commericial New Building
Deposit -
$11,567.28
Valuation Model -
$6,717
Square Foot Model -
$10,685
Valuation Model -
$8,431
25,000 SF (Construction Type:

IA classified as CBC group B)
two story office building on a
60,000 SF lot
Valuation - $7,312,000
Valuation Model -
$16,195
Square Foot Model -
$24,500
Square Foot Model -
$19,030
Square Foot Model -
$35,229
Valuation Model -
$28,648
Commericial New Building
Deposit -
$11,567.28
Valuation Model -
$36,996
Square Foot Model -
$20,495
Valuation Model -
$44,911
2,000 SF (Construction Type:

IIB classified as CBC Group R-
3) single family dwelling
Valuation - $394,260
Valuation Model -
$1,705
Square Foot Model -
$2,360
Square Foot Model -
$2836
Square Foot Model -
$4,514
Valuation Model -
$2,646
Residential Single Family
Detached Dwelling Deposit -
$5,353.56
Valuation Model -
$3,037
Square Foot Model -
$4,615
Valuation Model -
$3,409
200,000 SF 4 story (150) unit
(Construction Type: IA
classified as CBC Group R-2)
apartment building on a
100,000 SF lot
Valuation - $43,722,000
Valuation Model -
$91,015
Square Foot Model -
$120,000
Square Foot Model -
$79,936
Square Foot Model -
$75,198
Valuation Model -
$165,194
Multi-Family Dwelling -
$4,788.69
Valuation Model -
$223,298
Square Foot Model -
$183,900
Valuation Model -
$269,371
150,000 SF (Construction
Type: IIB classified as CBC
group S-1) one story
Industrial Warehouse
Building on a
300,000 sf lot
Valuation - $19,957,500
Valuation Model -
$33,535
Square Foot Model -
$33,000
Square Foot Model -
$44,472
Square Foot Model -
$31,068
Valuation Model -
$60,322
Industrial New Building
Deposit - $16,174.38
Valuation Model -
$80,212
Square Foot Model -
$24,970
Valuation Model -
$96,979
Water heater change-out (up
to 100,000 BTU) $10 $44 $139 $196 $12 $188 $107 $60 $38 200 Amp Electrical Service
Only Commercial $54 $106 $126 $196 $172 $304 $114 $155 $69 Installing Furnace, Burner or
Absorption System-up to
100,000 B.T.U.
$43 $58 $84 $52 $215 $188 $106 $230 $47
Note: The valuations for average construction costs are based on the International Code Council Building Valuation Data as of August 2024.

PAGE 24
Peer Fee Comparison – Planning

Riverside Current
Fee
Riverside Proposed
Fee Anaheim Corona Ontario County of Riverside Long Beach Moreno Valley Pasadena General Plan Amendment $10,678 $16,800
$207/hr
Min. Initial Deposit
$12,730
$9,085 - Base Fee +
$16 per acre
Text $5,000
Map $7,500
(deposit)
$7,479.66 - Deposit
Average Cost $15K -
$20K
$21,386 (text)
23,310.74 (surcharge)
$16,464 (map)
$17,945 (surcharge)
$3,500 - Deposit
Actual charge is
"fully burdened"
rate charge
$19,813
Variance, Modifications,
Exceptions, and Fair Housing
Requests - Without Signatures - All
Zones
$2,780 $5,774 $8,494/ea
Major - $6,547 base
plus $20 per lot
Minor - $2,698
$3,683.61
Deposit
$1,376 - Filed w/ Land
Division, CUP, PUP,
Commercial WECS or
Plot Plan
$2,625 - Filed Alone
Average Cost $3K -
$7.5K
$6,413 per first
variance plus $1,835
per additional variance
$6,990 w/surcharge
$2,049.20 per addt'l
w/surcharge
Public Hearing
Variance -
$3,663.00 (Plus
applicable notice
and posting fees)
$5,915
Environmental Impact Analysis
(EIR)
*average cost for EIR is $400-500k
$101,400 $160,296
$207/hr
Min. Initial Deposit
$31,287
Deposit based set at
30% of contract
amount with
charges at full cost
$10,000
(deposit) $8,607.78 - Flat Fee 115% of Consultant Cost
$7,000 - Deposit
Actual charge is
"fully burdened"
rate charge
$7,280 - Deposit
Actual Cost Charged
Conditional Use Permit $9,261 per
application $12,814
$9,324
No new
construction
Major - $8,898
Minor - $3,874 $6,195
$9,646 + $5.10 per lot
or site
Average Cost - $15K -
$30K
$13,995 (base fee)
$15,254 (w/surcharge)
$10,926 (Includes 3
Reviews)
Plus applicable
environmental
review, notice,
posting and
acreage/per unit
fees
Additional Review:
$945
$6,381
Conceptual Design Review $1,840 $4,532
Conceptual
Development
Review $207/hr
with $3,182
deposit
- $4,203 $1501.44 - Deposit
Average Cost - $3k-$5k
$1,849 - $5,455
$2,015.41 - $5,945.95
(w/surcharge)
$784 $399 - staff
$757 - commission
Design Review - General
Commercial, Industrial, and
Residential
$3,827 $9,790
Conceptual
Development
Review $207/hr
with $3,182
deposit
$3,294
5 acres or more:
$18,210.54
Less than 5 acres:
$12,580.80
$510 (exempt, planning
rev)
$4,023 (exempt, govt
rev)
$4,791.96 (non-
exempt)
Average Cost - $15k-
$30k
$8,334 - $14,665
$9,084.06 - $15,984.85
(w/surcharge)
$11,637 (public
hearing)
$8,113
(administrative)
$3,020 -$13,797
Planned Residential Development $14,672 $21,857
Conceptual
Development
Review $207/hr
with $848 deposit
$9,492 + 20/du $10,000
(deposit) No specific fee listed.

Site Plan Review >50
units:
$10,877 - $27,227
Residential Plan
Check & Inspection -
5 or more lots
$1,017
$22,049
Tentative Tract Map
$11,305 - 10 lots or
less
$16,336 - 10 lots or
more
$18,345 - 10 lots or
less
$22,089 - 10 lots or
more
$11,351
Deposit $12,470 + $49 per
lot
$10,296.06 + $65
per lot/unit
$9,003.54 -
$11,368,.92 + $102 per
lot + $19.38 per acre -
Deposit
Average Cost $25k-
$40k
$18,720.75 - 5 to 20
lots
$19,715.92 - 21 to 40
lots
$11,307 + noticing
fees $6,114

PAGE 25
Public Works
The user fee/cost analys is for this department mirrors the structure of City’s fee schedule and was developed separately for each division. Divisions included in the cost analysis are as follows:
 Engineering
 Refuse
Fees are charged in a variety of ways including:
 Flat (or fixed) fees – the fee is always the same, regardless of size or complexity.  Per square (or linear) foot – the fee is calculated based on size of the project under review.  Hourly (or time-and-materials) – city staff track time and materials expenses, and fees are calculated to recover actual costs.
 Actual cost – this fee is charged to recover consultant costs as billed to the City.  Per work activity – these fees are for blanket flat fees for annual citywide utility excavation permits issued to utility companies.
 Per connection or installation – the fee is calculated based on the number and type of physical connections to the City’s infrastructure, or the number of units of a particular device installed by the City on behalf of a private person.

Engineering
Within the Engineering division, current fees recover 64% of costs to provide services for which fees are charged, leaving 36% to be subsidized by other funding sources. This 36% represents a total dollar amount of $1,618,208 annually. Staff recommend increasing recovery levels to 100% to be phased in over two years . Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments could result in additional annual revenues of $1,618,208 by the second year.

Engineering restructured some of their fee categories to better reflect the current process, staffing levels and to be a more user-friendly fee schedule.

Highlights:
 New Fees – Twenty (20) new fees are proposed to be added to the engineering fee schedule: Stormwater inspection ( five fees), v ehicle miles traveled analysis, hydrology study review (two fees) , hourly rate for engineering staff, excessive plan checks , WQMP addendum review, minor conditional use permit, CEQA reviews (two fees), conceptual development review, general design review (two fees), single family residential (RC zones), landscape and irrigation (two fees), parcel map revision, and tentative tract revision.
 Fee Removal – One (1) fee is recommended for removal : Landscape plan review and inspection – 1st 500 linear feet.
 Impact Fees – The engineering fee schedule currently has 24 impact fees on their fee schedule. These fees are not considered cost -for-service and therefore MGT did not analyze those fees.
 Cross-Support - Engineering provides support to planning application reviews. Those fees

PAGE 26
can be found at the bottom of the engineering results table.

The User Fee Summary Sheet following this narrative provides further details of MGT’s fee analysis. The recommended fee and charges amount listed reflect the recommended amounts to be implemented in the second year assuming 100% cost recovery.

Refuse
Residential and commercial solid waste do not currently assess fees, charges, or penalties. Staff are proposing to add seventeen (31) fees and penalties to the schedule. The new residential fees will enable the City and contracted hauler to recover costs when required to return to an address to service a cart. The new commercial fees offer a variety of options, such as bulky item pickup, which is not currently offered to commercial customers, and having the hauler provide and install a lock on a commercial container.

Since these are new fee proposals, it is unclear at this time what the department can expect in increased revenue.

The User Fee Summary Sheet following this narrative provides further details of MGT’s fee analysis.

Comparative Data
Surveys showing a selected group of Engineering fees in comparison to neighboring agencies can be found following this narrative. Overall, the department fees are within the range of their peers. Refuse fees were not surveyed.

Disproportionate Impact
When meeting with the above divisions in Public Works, MGT and the staff together reviewed their current and proposed fees to determine if there may be any potential disproportionate impact on a sector of the community.

Engineering and Refuse did not identify any fees with potential disproportionate impact.

PAGE 27
Engineering User Fee Summary Sheet

PAGE 28

PAGE 29

PAGE 30

PAGE 31

PAGE 32

PAGE 33

PAGE 34

PAGE 35
Peer Fee Comparison - Engineering

Activity Riverside Current Fee Riverside Proposed
Fee Anaheim Corona Ontario Long Beach Moreno Valley Pasadena Street Opening Permit/Inspection -
Permit Issuance and Project
Processing Fee
$787 $936 $2,130
Plan Check - $622
Inspection - $291
Total = $913
$119 $415
No fee listed. Applicant
must have business license
and Traffic Control Plan.
$282
Water Quality Management
Program - Preliminary project
specific review
$1,792 $2,855 $3,190 $4,179 $1,179
Study Review &
Consultation:

Charge the fully allocated
hourly rate for all personnel
involved plus any outside
costs.
3 Reviews (Consultant and
Admin) - $3,359 No fee for this.

Grading Plan Check - Base Fee - 500
Cubic Yards (CY) (0-10 Acres) Single
Family Lot with 4 Sheets
$1,064 $1,725
Single Family ($7,000
minimum) $1,000/ LOT
Total = $7,000
Single Family Residence
Plan Check - $4,948 less than 1,000
CY
Total = $4,948
Grading plan check, precise
(0-10 acres)
Total = $1,727
Plan Check - 75% of Grading
Permit fee
Grading Permit (101 to
1,000 CY) - $172 for 100 CY
Plus $53 addt'l 100 CY
Total = $288
Plan Check - $2,250 per
sheet
Total = $9,000
Grading over 100 up to 500
CY - $5,765
Total = $5,765
Traffic Impact Analysis Review -
Project over 100 Vehicles Trips Per
Peak Hour
$2,872 $4,640 100 - 250 Peak Trips $4,640
>250 Peak Trips $7,730
Site Specific - $3,490
Regional - $7,806
No specific fee for this.

Misc/Technical Report
Review: actual cost + 25%
admin for consultant
review, if applicable
Study Review &
Consultation:

Charge the fully allocated
hourly rate for all personnel
involved plus any outside
costs.

Major: $3,118 Transportation Impact
Analysis $4,000 Deposit
Map Checking Fees - Base Fee plus
Per number and letter lot (Tract
Map with 25 Lots) with 6 sheets
$4,489 + $54 per
number and lettered
lot
Total = $6,656
$6,352 + $48 per
number and lettered
lot
Total = $7,898
Tract/Parcel Maps $8,240
Tract Map: $6,193 + Deposit
(Plus Scanning Fee, Per Sheet $29)
Total = $6,367
Map Review (Parcel/Tract) -
Base Fee $2,745 + $70 per
Add'l Parcel
Total = $4,495
Tract Maps: > 21 Lots/Units -
$8,447 per map + $59 for
each Lot/Unit over 20
Total = $8,742
Tract Map - $5,108 + $43 per
Lot
Total = $6,183
Final Tract Map or Parcel
Map (with dedication)
Processing
Total = $2,696
Construction Permits - Offsite
Improvement Plan Check - $200,000
estimated project cost for a 500
linear foot Public Street\Storm
Drain (4 Sheets)
$6,971 $8,591 $14/ LF
Total = $7,000
$100,001 - $500,000 Valuation
$17,609 + 1.5%
Total = $19,109
Sewer, Water, Storm Drain
Plan Check Fee 2% of Permit
Vauation
Total = $4,000
$1,305 plus estimate of
costs for inspection.

Site Inspection: $172/hour
Plan Check - $1,290 per
Sheet
Total = $12,900
Civil Design Plan Review
$2,392.24 per sheet
Processing fee
$78.62
$1.12 per LF
Total = $12,605

PAGE 36
City of Riverside
Refuse
FY 2024-25
Service Name Fee Description Annual
Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current
Recovery % Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @ Policy
Level
Annual
Revenue2
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ BULKY ITEM PICKUP PER ITEM (IN EXCESS OF 2 PICKUPS PER YEAR A New Fee 25$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 25$ -$ -$ -$ GO BACK/LATE SIT OUT (PENALTY) Penal ty 46$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 46$ -$ -$ -$ SOLID WASTE OVERAGE- RESIDENTIAL OVERWEIGHT/OVERFILLED CA Penal ty 46$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 46$ -$ -$ -$ DELIVERY/REMOVAL OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE CART (IN EXCESS New Fee-Actual Cost -$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% -$ -$ -$ -$ CLEAN UP HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILL DUE TO MATERIAL PLACED I Penal ty 209$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 209$ -$ -$ -$ EXTRA PICKUP REQUEST PER RESIDENTIAL CART (WITHIN SAME SERV New Fee 52$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 52$ -$ -$ -$ COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE CONTRACT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ STOP SERVICES AND OR RESUME SERVICE New Fee 49$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 49$ -$ -$ -$ BULKY ITEM PICKUP PER ITEM (LIMITED TO 5 ITEMS PER PICKUP) New Fee 25$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 25$ -$ -$ -$ BIN DELIVERY, EXCHANGE, SIZE EXCHANGE, REMOVAL New Fee 61$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 61$ -$ -$ -$ BIN WASHOUT IN EXCESS OF 1 PER YEAR New Fee 74$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 74$ -$ -$ -$ OVERWEIGHT/OVERFILLED COMMERCIAL BIN (PENALTY) Penal ty 63$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 63$ -$ -$ -$ BIN CONTAINER CONTAMINATION (PENALTY) Penal ty -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Second Violations Penal ty 100$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 100$ -$ -$ -$ Third Violations Penal ty 200$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 200$ -$ -$ -$ Subsequent Violations Penal ty 500$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 500$ -$ -$ -$ DEAD RUN, GO BACK (PENALTY) Penal ty 64$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 64$ -$ -$ -$ DEMURRAGE (PER DAY - NO DUMP IN 7 DAYS, COMMERCIAL BINS) New Fee 6$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 6$ -$ -$ -$ BIN LOCK INSTALLATION (FIRST LOCK) New Fee 32$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 32$ -$ -$ -$ Repl acement of Bi n Lock (i f l ost or stol en) New Fee 15$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 15$ -$ -$ -$ OVERWEIGHT ROLLOFF (in addition to disposal charges for each lo New Fee 120$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 120$ -$ -$ -$ ROLLOFF GO BACK, DEAD RUN, RELOCATION, SAME DAY EXPEDITE New Fee 147$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 147$ -$ -$ -$ ROLLOFF TOP LID RENTAL (PER MONTH) New Fee 68$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 68$ -$ -$ -$ OPEN-TOP BOX OR STORAGE BOX RENTAL (PER MONTH) New Fee 174$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 174$ -$ -$ -$ ROLLOFF PLASTIC LINER New Fee 48$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 48$ -$ -$ -$ CERTIFICATE OF DESTRUCTION New Fee 55$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 55$ -$ -$ -$ DEMURRAGE ON HAULER-OWNED ROLLOFF (per day - no hauls in 3 New Fee 22$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 22$ -$ -$ -$ COMPACTOR WASH OUT New Fee 292$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 292$ -$ -$ -$ ROLLOFF CONTAMINATION (PENALTY) Penal ty -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ First offense Penal ty 100$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 100$ -$ -$ -$ Second offense Penal ty 200$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 200$ -$ -$ -$ Third offense Penal ty 500$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 500$ -$ -$ -$ TIRE RATE FOR CLEANUPS New Fee -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Regular tires (per ton, plus $25 Manifest Fee per load) New Fee 317$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 317$ -$ -$ -$ Super tires (per ton, plus $25 Manifest fee per load) New Fee 634$ 0% -$ -$ -$ 100% 634$ -$ -$ -$ Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations

PAGE 37
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Administration
The user fee/cost analysis for the Administration division of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services is presented in this report. See reported dated May 2024 for the cost analysis of Recreation fees.

The Administration division does not currently charge for plan reviews, therefore all the fees proposed in the cost analysis are new. The division is proposing to add plan review fees in the following categories:
 Planning Case Review (DRC)
 Public Works Case Plan Check Review
 Building Permit Plan Check
Based on current volume statistics, the annual cost to the City to provide these services is $31,298. The department is recommending 100% cost recovery to be phased in over two years.

The projected increased revenue will be $31,298, annually by the second year assuming demand remains consistent.

Comparative Data
The above proposed fees were not included in the comparison survey.

PAGE 38
Parks and Recreation Administration User Fee Summary Sheet

City of Riverside
Parks, Recreation, & Community Services - Administration (520000) 2024-2025
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual
Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current
Recovery % Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue2
Increased
Revenue
Recommended
Subsidy
6 Planning Case Review (DRC)
7 Al l Cases Base Fee N ew Base Fee 190 -$ 40$ 0% 7,657$ -$ 7,657$ 100% 40$ 7,657$ 7,657$ -$ 8 Public Park Improvement New Hourl y Fee 3 -$ 209$ 0% 627$ -$ 627$ 100% 209$ 627$ 627$ -$ 9 Public Trail Improvement New Hourl y Fee 3 -$ 170$ 0% 509$ -$ 509$ 100% 170$ 509$ 509$ -$ 10 Public Works Case Plan Check Review
11 Al l Permi ts Base Fee New Base Fee 98 -$ 20$ 0% 1,975$ -$ 1,975$ 100% 20$ 1,975$ 1,975$ -$ 13 Public Trail Improvement New Hourl y Fee 3 -$ 94$ 0% 282$ -$ 282$ 100% 94$ 282$ 282$ -$ 14 Public Park Improvement New Hourl y Fee 2 -$ 108$ 0% 215$ -$ 215$ 100% 108$ 215$ 215$ -$ 15 Inspecti on Fee - Park Land New Hourl y Fee 38 -$ 74$ 0% 2,803$ -$ 2,803$ 100% 74$ 2,803$ 2,803$ -$ 16 Inspecti on Fee- Trai l New Hourl y Fee 12 -$ 108$ 0% 1,295$ -$ 1,295$ 100% 108$ 1,295$ 1,295$ -$ 17 Building Permit Plan Check
18 Al l Permi ts Base Fee New Base Fee 402 -$ 20$ 0% 8,100$ -$ 8,100$ 100% 20$ 8,100$ 8,100$ -$ 19 Public Trail Improvement New Hourl y Fee 3 -$ 207$ 0% 621$ -$ 621$ 100% 207$ 621$ 621$ -$ 20 Public Park Improvement New Hourl y Fee 3 -$ 144$ 0% 433$ -$ 433$ 100% 144$ 433$ 433$ -$ 21 Inspection fee each permit: Trail Inspection New Hourl y Fee 24 -$ 94$ 0% 2,262$ -$ 2,262$ 100% 94$ 2,262$ 2,262$ -$ 22 Inspecti on fee each permi t: Park Improvement New Hourl y Fee 52 -$ 87$ 0% 4,519$ -$ 4,519$ 100% 87$ 4,519$ 4,519$ -$ Total User Fees $31,298 $0 $31,298 $31,298 $31,298 $2,224,298 % of Full Cost 0% 100% 100% 0% 7107%
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations

PAGE 39

Recommendations Going Forward
Once the commitment is made to understand the full cost of providing services, it is important to review and update the analysis in order to keep pace with changes in service delivery, staffing changes, and demand levels.

Most of our agencies ask us at the conclusion of the study: how often should this type of study be undertaken? Our advice is to conduct this detailed analysis at least every three but not more than five years, with minor adjustments in the non‐study years to keep pace with economic impacts. MGT recommends the City apply an inflation adjustment to fees annually, based on the most recent CPI from All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles area to keep pace with inflation. The industry best practice is to apply this index once per year as part of the City’s annual budget process. This is particularly helpful once an agency has chosen to adopt a cost recovery policy – whether 100% of cost or something less – in order to keep fees at the desired level.

Riverside City CouncilMarch 11, 2025

Riverside City Council
March 11, 2025