Attachment 1 - Draft Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study — Santa Rosa City Council, January 30, 2024

DEVELOPMENT RELATED COST OF

SERVICE FEE STUDY

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA
Final Dr aft Report
Januar
y 18, 2024
MGTCONSULTING.COM
At tachment 1

MGTCONSULTING.COM

City of Santa Rosa, California
DEVELOPMENT RELATED COST OF SERVICE FEE STUDY January 18, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 2 USER FEE FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 3 LEGAL, ECONOMIC & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS ....................................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 16 APPENDIX A - USER FEE RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 16

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 1

CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
MGT Consulting Group (MGT) is pleased to present the City of Santa Rosa with this summary of findings for the recently completed development related cost of services fee study.

The City contracted with MGT to perform a cost of service study using fiscal year 2023 budgeted figures, staffing and operational information.

The current fees listed in this study represent the fees being charged at the beginning of this study. The last development user fee study was completed in 2013 and adopted by City Council in early 2014. A minor, City‐generated fee update was completed in 2018, but did not include several key areas in the development process. Each year, the City of Santa Rosa adopts revisions to its comprehensive fee schedule. While this process allows for the City to account for variance in the Consumer Price Index or the value of land or public infrastructure improvements, it does not (generally) include a revision of the underlying formulas used to make the fee calculations. As such, some of the development user fees have not been revisited since 2013.

This report is the culmination of an extensive study conducted by MGT in collaboration with the City’s Planning and Economic Development 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
The study included a review of development related fee for service activities within the following areas:
 Building
 Engineering
 Fire (development related only)
 Permit Services
 Planning
 Technology Surcharge
 Advance Planning Surcharge
The goal for this study was to present a well‐documented and defensible cost of service plan that would identify rates that would 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 was performed under the general direction of the Director and Interim Director of Planning and Economic Development. The primary goals of the study were to:
 Make the fee structure easier for all parties to understand.  Define what it costs the City to provide the various fee‐related services.

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 2

 Determine whether there are any services where a fee should be collected.  Identify service areas where the City might adjust fees based on the full cost of services and other economic or policy considerations.
 Develop revenue projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to 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 City revenues.

CHAPTER 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
User Fee Financial Overview
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 at 100% cost recovery levels. The fee analysis adheres to Proposition 26 which is based on the "estimated reasonable cost of providing a service".

The City is looking for guidance from the City Council on any reductions they may want to see to any of the fees. At 100% cost recovery the fees would cover all labor and indirect costs associated with providing
each service. Any reduction in the fee would not eliminate the cost of providing the service but would reduce the price to the consumer. The difference between 100% full cost recovery and any reduction in price would need to be covered through other funding sources such as the general fund. This cost does not go away due to a price reduction and cannot be shifted to another fee to be covered based on California state law.

The exhibit below shows the annualized costs and revenues for the City’s user fees that were part of this analysis. The analysis was based on the average volumes from fiscal year 2020/2021, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. It is difficult to predict future revenues due to the fluctuation in the volumes and economic conditions. MGT has based the annual cost off of the individual full cost for each fee analyzed and then multiplied that cost by the average volumes. The results are shown in Exhibit 1 on the next page:

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 3

Exhibit 1

 Column A, User Fee Costs – This column represents what it is actually costing each of the departments to provide the annual user fee services based on the average volumes listed above.

In total, this study evaluated $14,225,755 of costs to provide development related services. It is this amount that is 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 average volumes listed above. Based on current fee recovery levels, the city receives fee‐related cost recovery in the amount equal to $10,901,887 and is experiencing an overall 77% cost recovery level. The details of individual fees may be found in and in Appendix A of this report.

 Column C, Current Subsidy – This column shows the difference between what it is actually costing the city to provide services versus what is being recovered in revenue for these same services.

Current fee levels recover 77% of full cost, leaving 23% or $3,323,866. This difference is being subsidized by other funding sources such as the general fund. This subsidy represents an opportunity for an updated and more focused cost recovery effort by the city for fee‐related services.

Methodology
A cost‐of‐service (user fee) 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 multiplies by the time spent yields the cost of providing the service.

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 4

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 services. 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 compensated absences, 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 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.

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 and benefits.
 The hourly salary and benefit rate is calculated by taking the annual salary and benefits of an employee and dividing by 2,080 available hours in a year.  The overhead rate is derived by multiplying the internal and external indirect cost rates against the salary and benefit rates.

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 5

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 2023 budgeted expenditures. The building and safety division utilizes one divisional hourly rate which incorporates all of these elements but averages them together.

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.

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 to 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 Appendix A 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 a principal 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 to 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 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., oversize permit fees) may be capped by state law and may not change, regardless of any cost analysis performed.

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 6

 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 cost recovery. For example, some agencies may choose to subsidize or waive fees related to historic district plan review. This encourages customers to seek the necessary approvals for development so that the project adheres to the historic district needs.

The cost to perform this service does not go away and this cost would need to be funded through another funding source such as the general fund.

 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.

 Incentives ‐ Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as the issuance of a water heater permit.

A sample of the decision‐making process is shown in Exhibit 2 on the next page:

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 7

Exhibit 2
CHAPTER 3. Analysis Highlights
Below is a brief discussion of the findings for each department/division’s analysis. Please see the user fee summary sheets in Appendix A of this report for the details on each fee calculation and cost analysis.

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 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 expense, and fees are calculated to recover actual costs.
 Actual cost – this fee is charged to recover consultant costs as billed to the City, or time and materials of staff.
 Percentage of permit – the fee is calculated as a percentage of the original permit fee.

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 8

 Percentage of Engineer’s Estimate – fees are calculated as percentage of engineer’s estimate of construction value.
 Other increments – fees are calculated based on increments such as number of sheets or number of set ups/take downs.

BUILDING & SAFETY
Building permits and plan checks benefit individuals and the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. In general, because these fees primarily benefit the fee payer, typically these fees are set at or close to 100% cost recovery. However, there are some fees such as the trade permits within Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing permits that in the past have been set at less than 100% cost recovery as directed by the City Council.

The Building and Safety division has experienced a boom since FY 2019 and the industry is just now showing signs of slowing down. Because of the large increase in volume, the department is showing an excess in revenues vs the budgeted cost for the division. This is an issue of volume and timing and not of excessive fees.

Within the Building and Safety division, current fees recover 100.1% ($6,114,461) with actual costs at $6,109,159 which is a difference of $5,303 or less than 0.1%. An additional $39,471 has been added to the Planning fees as cross support. These costs for cross support represent the time spent by the Building staff to perform plan review services on the planning fees. This cost would be recognized as revenue on the Planning fees.

In keeping with State law, the
target cost recovery percentage must not exceed 100%. Assuming no loss in demand or change in volume, fee adjustments result in a 100% overall recovery rate. It should be noted that at the prior direction of City Council that the trade permits (mechanical, electrical and plumbing) were set much lower than 100% cost recovery. In order to meet 100% cost recovery, these fees would need to increase considerably. We are proposing some fee reductions on some permits and some fee increases in order to keep the cost aligned with the level of effort to provide the services and to keep within State cost recovery limits. In addition, it should be noted that the State of California restricts solar panel review fees to specific pricing. All proposed solar panel review fees comply with AB 1414 which is what the division is proposing.

In addition to performing an analysis of the costs, MGT worked with the department to modify their fee
structure allowing it to reflect the current process and to be a more user‐friendly fee schedule. In doing this the division was able to reduce the number of fees significantly.

The Building analysis followed the following approach:

 MGT developed a fully burdened hourly rate and applied it to the average time spent to perform 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 for inspections.

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 9

 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 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.

Here are some of the changes being proposed (details can be found on the executive summary listed in Appendix A at the end of this report:

Construction Permit Categories
Construction permits were simplified into 10 categories with a price per square foot for plan review and a price per square foot for inspections.

 Residential (single family) (R‐2.1/R‐3/R‐3.1/R‐4)
 Residential Accessory Structure – U
 Residential (Additions or Alterations)
 Residential (multi‐family) (R‐1/R‐2)
 Assembly, High Hazard, Institutional, Educational (A, H, E, I, L)  Business, Mercantile (B, M)
 Factory and Industrial, Storage (F, S)
 Utility & Misc. (commercial accessory structure) (U)
 Shell
 Residential Plot Plans (R‐3)
Tenant Improvement Categories
Tenant Improvements (TI) were broken down into 3 primary groups and then into minor, standard and major categories. The result is 9 TI categories now have their own per square foot cost for plan review and for inspections.

 TI for A, H, E, I – Minor
 TI for A, H, E, I – Standard
 TI for A, H, E, I – Major
 TI for B, M ‐ Minor
 TI for B, M ‐ Standard
 TI for B, M – Major
 TI for F, S ‐ Minor
 TI for F, S – Standard
 TI for F, S ‐ Major
The Building Official will set guidelines as to what is considered a minor, standard or major TI. The Building Official will have discretion as to what category a project may fall under.

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 10

Trade Permits: Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) The number of trade permits for Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) were significantly reduced since many of the fees take the same amount of time to perform the service.

Mechanical ‐ Now has only 10 fees
 Air Conditioning (residential)
 Air Conditioning (commercial)
 Air Handler
 Boiler
 Chiller
 Exhaust Hood
 Furnace – New/Replacement
 Heater / Heat Pump
 Vent Fan / Chimney Vent
 Walk‐in Box / Refrigerator Coil / Refrigeration Compressor Electrical ‐ Now has only 10 fees
 Generator Installation (residential)
 Electrical Service, New/Meter Replacement
 Electrical Circuits, New
 Energy Storage System
 Temporary Power Service
 Commercial Generator
 Water Heater – Electric
 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (residential)
 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (commercial/multifamily) – non accessible  Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (commercial/multifamily) – accessible Plumbing/Gas ‐ Now has only 9 fees
 Fixtures (each 5)
 Gas system/Gas Piping / Fixture
 Sewer, Building
 Water Reclamation (Grey Water)
 Solar Water System
 Water Heater
 Plumbing Repair
 Water Pump
 Commercial Plumbing Permits
Miscellaneous Fees
There are 20 new fees being recommended under the miscellaneous permit fee schedule. Some are brand new fees and others have taken the current fee and split it into multiple fees.

New Fees
CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 11

 Awning/Canopy (supported by building)
 Cell site alteration/remodel
 Manufactured home – removal
 Moved building ‐ residential
 Partition – interior
 Photovoltaic System (ground mount pedestal)
 Photovoltaic System (ground mount structure)
 Reroof ‐ Commercial/Multifamily: up to 25,000 sq. ft.  Reroof ‐ Commercial/Multifamily: 25,001 and over sq. ft  Reroof ‐ Residential (SFD/Duplex): up to 10,000 sq. ft.  Reroof ‐ Residential (SFD/Duplex): 10,001 and over sq. ft  Pool/Spa Replastering/Renovations (Commercial or Residential)  Temporary Trailer, Residential
 Water Tank
 Records Imagining Fee: Plans & Permits B& W 24x36
 Records Imagining Fee: Plans & Permits B& W 30x42
 Records Imagining Fee: Plans & Permits B& W 11x17
 Records Imagining Fee: Plans & Permits Color 24x36
 Records Imagining Fee: Plans & Permits Color 30x42
 Records Imagining Fee: Plans & Permits Color 11x17
PERMIT SERVICES
Permit Services is responsible for the intake of planning applications, building trade permits and construction permits.

Currently there is a $56.28 fee for the intake of the building trade permits. The time to intake the planning applications is currently built into the planning fees themselves. By breaking out the planning application intake costs from the planning fees themselves it will allow the department to ensure that these costs are
covered should the applicant request a refund. The process to perform an intake for either a building trade permit or planning applications takes the same amount of time. At 100% cost recovery, this fee would need to be increased to $75.

The additional cross support provided for building services totaled $1,521,048 and were incorporated into the construction and tenant improvement fees.

The projected revenue for the intake fees is estimated to be approximately $127,135. There is currently only one intake fee for the building permits which is recovering approximately $44,124. The time for the
planning application intake is currently incorporated into the current planning fee and has now been pulled out and identified as a separate fee.

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 12

PLANNING

The Planning division administers and implements City land use and development policies. The division processes numerous land use applications requiring city approval before the land can be developed or action taken. These services benefit the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery.

Within the Planning division, current fees recover is 65% ($1,814,029) with a 35% ($989,146) subsidy. A combination of fee increases and decreases are recommended in order to align fees with 100% cost recovery. The full cost of services is $2,803,175. Of the $2,803,175, cross support from other departments make up $475,911 leaving $2,327,264 related directly to Planning itself.

This cross support represents the time that other departments/divisions may spend performing tasks for services provided by the Planning division. By incorporating cross support costs into the fee, Planning can see what the full cost is to provide these services and set their fees accordingly.

The Planning
division is proposing seven new fees, some of which include the existing fee being broken down into a major or minor category. Overall, there are no significant structural changes being proposed for the Planning fee schedule.

Other highlights for the Planning division:

 Design Review: Major with reduced fee authority
 Design Review: SB9 two‐unit development
 SB 35/AB 2162 (change to Minor Ministerial) – this fee was split into a major and minor ministerial fee.
 Research Fee
 Subdivision: Parcel Map Waiver
 Subdivision: SB9 Urban Lot Split
 Over the Counter – Entitlement Fee
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

The Engineering Development Services division reviews street and utility improvement plans for compliance with applicable design standards and regulations, as well as inspects project construction to assure conformance with approved grading, drainage and storm water management plans. These services benefit the development community as well as individuals and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. In general, because these fees primarily benefit the fee payer, typically these fees are set at or close to 100% cost recovery.

Engineering fees are currently recovering approximately 60% of their cost. In order to better align services provided with fees charged, Engineering is proposing restructuring many of their fees. Details of these
proposed changes are as follows:

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 13

Public Improvement Plans – Review and Inspection
Current fees are based on percentage of estimated construction value with a tiered structure for both plan checks and inspections. To analyze the true cost, staff estimated time spent on 13 sample parcels of varying size and complexity. Time estimates included cross support from other departments. The resulting cost to valuation ratio was compared to the fee collected for each parcel. Results showed that the smaller parcels were under‐recovering cost, i.e., the cost to valuation ratio was higher than current fees, and larger parcels were over‐recovering, with a cost to valuation ratio lower than current fees.

Engineering is proposing a similar tiered structure, with adjustments to the divisions of tiers and percentages of construction value charged.

Encroachment Permits
Encroachment permits are currently charged with a processing fee and a percentage of construction value for plan checks and inspections. Recommendations for new categories of encroachment fees are as
follows:
 Major encroachment permits – fee structure will not change. Fees will be charged based on the same percentage of construction value as the Public Improvement Plan fees.  Minor encroachment permits ‐ Flat fees in 11 different categories based on type of parcel. Permits will include separate fees for processing, plan check, and inspection. The new categories are:

1. Single Family Residential Lot Improvements (driveway, sidewalk, curb & gutter)

2. Multi‐Family Residential and Commercial Single Lot Improvements (driveway, sidewalk, curb & gutter)

3. Debris Bins and Storage Containers

4. Encroachment proposing no Modifications to Public or Private Infrastructure

5. Encroachment permit with Signed Public Improvement Plans

6. Private Utility Company ‐ Small Wireless Facilities

7. Private Utility Company ‐ Short Term Service Work
o maximum of 3 parcels ‐ includes modifications to City's Infrastructure o maximum of 3 parcels ‐ no modifications to City's Infrastructure

8. Private Utility Company ‐ Linear Construction
o > 3 parcels ‐ includes modifications to City's infrastructure ‐ no construction activities adjacent to more than 72 parcels
o > 3 parcels ‐ no modifications to City's infrastructure ‐ no construction activities adjacent to more than 72 parcels

9. Public or Private Parklets
Subdivision Plan Check
Currently a flat fee is charged per lot for all subdivision plan checks. The recommendation is to replace this “one‐size‐fits‐all” flat fee with:
 Minor subdivision plan check: flat fee for the first three map sheets for subdivisions with four lots or fewer, charging a fee for additional map sheets as required.

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 14

 Major subdivision plan check: flat fee for the first three map sheets with subdivisions with more than four lots, charging a fee for additional map sheets as required.

Other Public Improvement Plan Fees
Recommendations are as follows:
 Replace the single Improvement Plan Revision fee with Minor and Major revision fees. The minor
revision fee will be capped at two plan reviews with no added sheets. Major revision fees will follow the percentage‐based fee structure of the original plan submittal.  Replace the single Record Drawing flat fee with Minor and Major Record Drawing fees.

Drainage and Stormwater LID
Review fees
Recommendations are as follows:
 Replace the single SUSMP Review flat fee with three LID Review fees: two flat fees based on size of parcel and an additional review fee if needed based on actual cost.  Add four new Drainage Study Review fees with similar structure to the LID Review fees.

Other New Fee Proposals
 Encroachment Time Extension Request
 Modifying Scope on Approved Permit
 Complex Traffic Control Review Fee
 Two penalties for work performed without permit, plus permit reinstatement fee  After hours inspection fee
 Drainage Study Review fees
 Five new Street Light and Traffic Signal fees:
o Traffic Signal Plan Review
o Traffic Signal Inspection
o Street Light Activation
o Traffic Signal Modification
o Traffic Signal Modification ‐ after hours
 Parking Administration fee for reservation of meters associated with construction activity FIRE

The Prevention division of the Fire department currently charges 50% of Building permit fees for plan checks and inspections of new construction.

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 15

The methodology used to calculate Fire Prevention’s cost for development fee services was similar to that used for Building. Fire staff subtracted their non‐development related cost from their budget. The remaining cost was used for the analysis, supplied by Fire staff, on how each position’s effort is dedicated to plan review and inspection of each of the categories of new construction occupancies requiring Fire inspections. Using the same total annual square footage for each occupancy type as Building’s analysis, we were able to calculate a cost per square foot for plan reviews and inspections. This cost per square foot was then used to calculate the percentage of Building’s cost for each type of occupancy.

The cost analysis showed that Fire Prevention’s plan review and inspection cost is, on average, 22% of Building’s permit cost. Fire will need to lower their new construction plan review and inspection fees, so they don’t over‐recover their cost. Fire’s recommendation is to charge a fee per square foot for each category of building they review and inspect, rather than a percentage of Building’s permit fees.

TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE

This fee is currently paid with the building permit fee. The fee is for the purpose of cost recovery for
specialized license fees, maintenance of computer hardware, and computer software that are instrumental in the City’s ability to provide efficient service and maintain accurate records. Currently the City charges eight separate fees ranging from $26 to $219 depending on the type of building permit being issued.

A
new technology fee of 5.69% is being recommended as a replacement for the eight existing flat fees.

This technology fee is to cover the department’s current technology costs plus future costs such as additional handheld devices for the field and updates to the permitting system. Any excess revenue received through this fee should be held in a special revenue fund and used only for its intended purpose.

This fee should be reviewed, at a minimum, every three (3) and no more than five (5) years to ensure that it is set at an appropriate level. This new technology fee would be paid with the issuance of all building, planning, and engineering development fees. Fire development fees are excluded from this surcharge.

Estimated annual revenue is $416,215 assuming revenue for building, planning, and engineering are similar to the averages utilized in this study.

ADVANCE PLANNING SURCHARGE

This fee is currently paid with the issuance of the building permit. The fee is for the purpose of recovering a portion of the Planning division’s cost of service associated with Advance Planning, preparing and updating the General Plan, development code updates, housing element and specific plan updates.

There are currently
eight separate flat fees ranging from $104 up to $833 depending on the type of building permit that is being issued.

Current Advance Planning Fees:

1. New detached dwellings $590

2. Dwelling Additions/Remodels $104

3. New Attached & Multi‐Family Dwellings $417

4. Multi‐Family Additions/Remodels $104
CHAPTER 2: RECOMMENDATIONS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 16

5. Commercial‐Business & Retail $833

6. Commercial Additions/Remodels $487

7. Industrial $555

8. Industrial Additions/Remodels $347

A new Advance Planning surcharge of 16.15% is being recommended as a replacement for the eight existing flat fees. This new Advance Planning surcharge would be paid with the issuance of building permits (excluding
trade permits) and plan reviews. Fire development fees are excluded from this surcharge. Estimated annual revenue, which assumes no change in volume and demand, is $612,500.

CHAPTER 4. Recommendations
MGT recommends the following:
 Staff are looking for guidance from the City Council on recommendations.  MGT recommends reviewing the technology and advance planning surcharges annually to ensure that the percentages represent and are recovering the needs of the City. These funds should be placed in a special revenue fund to ensure that they are used only for their intended purpose.  MGT recommends that the City continue to build on its investment in this cost‐of‐service analysis by continuing to analyze its fees and charges every three to five years whether this is done by staff or an outside consultant.
 MGT recommends that for the period between analysis, that the City increase fees based on a CPI factor in order to maintain cost recovery as salaries and benefits and services and supply costs increase.

Appendix A - User Fee Results
The following pages provide the individual fee study results.

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 17

Building

Note: Cross support costs are included in the Planning results and are excluded from the total above. *Miscellaneous revenues are rolled up into building permits and plan review revenues in the City’s financial system. This revenue currently includes the trip fee of $63.31, at the time of this analysis. The current trade fees (Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing) do not show the trip fee. This is added as a separate fee. MGT's analysis has included the trip fee in order to do a proper comparison of the fee recovery level. MGT has added the trip fee into the current trade fees to provide this comparison. This change required MGT to adjust the revenue down under the building permits to account for this; however, there was no good way to account for this revenue adjustment in the model. As a way to account for this and not overestimate the existing revenues, MGT has offset the miscellaneous revenues with this trip fee revenue that shifted to the trade fees. Since the miscellaneous fees are also rolled up into the building permit and plan review revenues, this should balance the existing revenues out at the overall level. This does however show that there is a larger difference in the recovery level for the miscellaneous fee. The individual fees listed on under the miscellaneous permits will show the appropriate recovery levels.

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 18

City of Santa Rosa
Development Service: Building fees
FY 22‐23 Budget
Final Report
DIFF ‐/+
Occupancy Types in Category Type Plan Review Inspection Total Plan Review Inspection Total Current ‐Full R‐2.1/R‐3/R‐3.1/R‐4
(single family) Residential (single family) $1.4 4 $0.98 $2.42 $1.65 $0.86 $2.50 $0.08 Residential Accessory Structure ‐ U
Residential Accessory Structure $2.02 $1.87 $3.89 $2.52 $1.27 $3.80 $0.09 Residential (Additions or Alterations) Residential (Additions or Alterations) $1.78 $1.05 $2.83 $1.95 $0.87 $2.82 $0.01
R‐1, R‐2
(multi ‐family) Residential (multi ‐family) $0.28 $0.11 $0.39 $0.55 $0.24 $0.79 $0.40 A, H, E, I, L Assembly, High Hazard,
Institutional, Educational $0.89 $0.44 $1.33 $1.28 $0.63 $1.91 $0.58 B, M
Business, Mercantile $1.32 $0.56 $1.88 $1.35 $0.80 $2.15 $0.27 F, S
Factory and Industrial, Storage $0.6 4 $0.27 $0.91 $0.81 $0.50 $1.32 $0.41 U (commercial accessory structure) Utility & Misc (commercial accessory structure) $4.04 $0.81 $4.84 $3.93 $2.02 $5.94 $1.10 TI for A, H, E, I
Minor Tenant Improvement $1.07 $0.36 $1.43 $0.66 $0.41 $1.06 $0.37 TI for A, H, E, I
Standard Tenant Improvement $1.01 $0.39 $1.40 $1.14 $0.56 $1.71 $0.31 TI for A, H, E, I
Major Tenant Improvement $0.99 $0.39 $1.37 $1.71 $0.64 $2.3 4 $0.97 TI for B, M
Minor Tenant Improvement $1.66 $0.58 $2.23 $0.74 $0.61 $1.35 $0.88 TI for B, M
Standard Tenant Improvement $1.29 $0.7 4 $2.03 $1.18 $0.91 $2.09 $0.06 TI for B, M
Major Tenant Improvement $1.36 $0.6 4 $2.00 $1.74 $1.00 $2.7 4 $0.74 Current Full Cost
Price Per Square Foot
CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 19

City of Santa Rosa
Development Service: Building fees
FY 22‐23 Budget
Final Report
DIFF ‐/+
Occupancy Types in Category Type Plan Review Inspection Total Plan Review Inspection Total Current ‐Full TI for F, S
Minor Tenant Improvement $0.91 $0.30 $1.20 $0.63 $0.30 $0.93 $0.27 TI for F, S
Standard Tenant Improvement $0.6 6 $0.26 $0.92 $1.03 $0.37 $1.41 $0.49 TI for F, S
Major Tenant Improvement $1.07 $0.33 $1.40 $1.65 $0.53 $2.18 $0.78 Shell
Shell $0.59 $0.27 $0.8 6 $0.78 $0.50 $1.29 $0.43
R‐3
Residential Plot Plans $0.19 $0.49 $0.68 $0.77 $0.45 $1.22 $0.54 Current Full Cost
Price Per Square Foot

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 20

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 21

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 22

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 23

City of Santa Rosa
Development Service: Building fees
FY 22‐23 Budget
TABLE 5 Miscellaneous building permits Fee Description
Current fee
(PC/INSP)
Annual
Volume Full Cost
Diff. +/‐
Current‐Full
Cost
Annual
Revenue Annual Cost
Annual Diff.
+/‐ Current‐
Full Cost
Alternate Material Request Fixed Fee $300.24 10 $183.59 $116.65 $3,002 $1,836 $1,167 Awning/Canopy (supported by building) ‐ New
Fee
New ‐ Fixed Fee 5 $183.59 ($183.59) $0 $918 ‐$918 Balcony Addition/Deck Fixed Fee $199.93 55 $229.48 ($29.55) $10,996 $12,622 ‐$1,625 Cell/wireless site (cell, radio, TV antenna) Fixed Fee $626.37 9 $458.96 $167.41 $5,637 $4,131 $1,507 Cell Pole / Tower / Eqpt shelter Fixed Fee $696.72 10 $458.96 $237.76 $6,967 $4,590 $2,378 Cell site alteration/remodel (new fee) New ‐ Fixed Fee 10 $458.96 ($458.96) $0 $4,590 ‐$4,590 Covered porch Fixed Fee $175.31 30 $229.48 ($54.17) $5,259 $6,884 ‐$1,625 Demolition ‐ major Fixed Fee $198.62 8 $321.27 ($122.65) $1,589 $2,570 ‐$981 Demolition ‐ minor Fixed Fee $163.43 31 $229.48 ($66.05) $5,066 $7,114 ‐$2,048 Fence/Gate/Free Standing Wall Fixed Fee $251.53 8 $183.59 $67.94 $2,012 $1,469 $544 Flag pole Fixed Fee $139.55 3 $183.59 ($44.04) $419 $551 ‐$132 Grading Fixed Fee $1,064.46 10 $1,376.89 ($312.43) $10,645 $13,769 ‐$3,124 Grading permit add on for NPDES Fixed Fee $1,795.67 10 $2,478.41 ($682.74) $17,957 $24,784 ‐$6,827 Manufactured home ‐ removal New Fee New ‐ Fixed Fee 3 $229.48 ($229.48) $0 $688 ‐$688 Moved building ‐ residential New Fee New ‐ Fixed Fee 1 $826.14 ($826.14) $0 $826 ‐$826 Partition ‐ interior New Fee New ‐ Fixed Fee 30 $229.48 ($229.48) $0 $6,884 ‐$6,884 Patio cover (each) (Size Limit 0 sf to 500 sf) Fixed Fee $175.31 25 $229.48 ($54.17) $4,383 $5,737 ‐$1,354 Per Customer Budget Impact

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 24

New ‐ Fixed Fee
(previously charged
under another fee)
$1,671.43 124 $642.55 $661.71 $207,257 $79,676 $127,581 Reroof ‐ Commercial/Multifamily: 25,001 and
over sq. ft
New ‐ Fixed Fee
(previously charged
under another fee)
$1,733.03 100 $1,009.72 $1,457.65 $173,303 $100,972 $72,331 Reroof ‐ Residential (SFD/Duplex): up to
10,000 sq. ft.

New ‐ Fixed Fee
(previously charged
under another fee)
$705.82 100 $275.38 $63.27 $70,582 $27,538 $43,044 Reroof ‐ Residential (SFD/Duplex): 10,001 and
over sq. ft
New ‐ Fixed Fee
(previously charged
under another fee)
$769.13 100 $642.55 $558.01 $76,913 $64,255 $12,658 Residing/ stucco ‐ one story Fixed Fee $204.45 99 $211.12 ($6.67) $20,241 $20,901 ‐$661 Residing/ stucco ‐ multistory Fixed Fee $204.45 100 $211.12 ($6.67) $20,445 $21,112 ‐$667 Retaining wall, engineered Fixed Fee $221.62 24 $367.17 ($145.55) $5,319 $8,812 ‐$3,493 Signs: Monument/Freestanding Non‐Electric Fixed Fee $223.38 19 $183.59 $39.79 $4,244 $3,488 $756 Signs: Pole Non‐Electric Fixed Fee $223.38 20 $183.59 $39.79 $4,468 $3,672 $796 Per Customer Budget Impact

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 25

City of Santa Rosa
Development Service: Building fees
FY 22‐23 Budget
TABLE 5 Miscellaneous building permits * Fee Description Current fee
(PC/INSP)
Annual
Volume Full Cost
Diff. +/‐
Current‐Full
Cost
Annual
Revenue Annual Cost
Annual Diff.
+/‐ Current‐
Full Cost
Signs: Wall, Non‐Electric Fixed Fee $158.88 20                $183.59 ($24.71) $3,178 $3,672 ‐$494 Signs ‐ Electric Fixed Fee $190.76 20                $229.48 ($38.72) $3,815 $4,590 ‐$774 Skylight Fixed Fee $154.79 25                $229.48 ($74.69) $3,870 $5,737 ‐$1,867 Spa or hot tub (prefabricated) Fixed Fee $158.29 70                $550.76 ($392.47) $11,080 $38,553 ‐$27,473 Storage Racks / catwalks Fixed Fee $156.34 25                $275.38 ($119.04) $3,909 $6,884 ‐$2,976 Swimming pool / spa: Residential
(SFD/Duplex) Pool and or Spa
Fixed Fee $390.86 70                $1,376.89 ($986.03) $27,360 $96,382 ‐$69,022 Swimming pool / spa: Commercial /
Multifamily
Fixed Fee $512.00 $1,376.89 ($864.89) $0 $0
Pool/Spa Replastering/Renovations
(Commercial or Res)
New ‐ Fixed Fee $1,376.89 ($1,376.89) $0 $0
Fiberglass Pools/Spas Fixed Fee $269.70 $275.38 ($5.68) $0 $0 Temporary trailer, residential New Fee New ‐ Fixed Fee 25                $275.38 ($275.38) $0 $6,884 ‐$6,884 Water tank New Fee New ‐ Fixed Fee 3                  $275.38 ($275.38) $0 $826 ‐$826 Window or sliding glass door Fixed Fee $175.31 42                $229.48 ($54.17) $7,363 $9,638 ‐$2,275 National Pollutant Discharge Permit Review ‐ 5%
of plan check fee of all valuation based building
permits (new buildings or new grading projects)
(NPDES)
Remove fee $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0
Additional Plan Review, Master Plan Change or
Review for New Code
Hourly Rate $234.00 $183.59 $50.41 $0 $0 $0
Expedited Plan Review Remove fee $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0
Plan Reviews with no fee indicated Hourly Rate $234.00 $183.59 $50.41 $0 $0 $0 Per Customer Budget Impact

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 26

Change to Per Hour (1
hour minimum)
$120.00 $183.59 ($63.59) $0 $0 $0
Residential Seismic Hazard Inspection change to Minimum 1 hr. with 1 hr.
increments
thereafter.
$60.00 $183.59 ($123.59) $0 $0 $0
Commercial Seismic Hazard Inspection change to Minimum 1 hr. with 1 hr.
increments
thereafter.
$181.00 $183.59 ($2.59) $0 $0 $0
Single ‐Family Dwelling Code Disclosure
Inspection
change to Minimum 2
hr. with 1 hr.
increments
thereafter.
$181.00 $367.17 ($186.17) $0 $0 $0
Multi‐Family Dwelling Code Disclosure (base
fee) Inspection
change to per hour
with 2 hour minimum
$181.00 $367.17 ($186.17) $0 $0 $0
Multi‐Family Dwelling Code Disclosure (per
additional unit) Inspection
change to per hour
with 2 hour minimum
$57.00 $367.17 ($310.17) $0 $0 $0
Per Customer Budget Impact

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 27

City of Santa Rosa
Development Service: Building fees
FY 22‐23 Budget
TABLE 5 Miscellaneous building permits * Fee Description Current fee
(PC/INSP)
Annual
Volume Full Cost
Diff. +/‐
Current‐Full
Cost
Annual
Revenue Annual Cost
Annual Diff.
+/‐ Current‐
Full Cost
Commercial Code Disclosure Inspection $60/per hr. (3 hrs. minimum)
$180.00 $550.76 ($370.76) $0 $0 $0
Review and Abatement of Existing Hazardous
Structures ‐  initial review
change to per hour
with 2 hour minimum
$211.00 $367.17 ($156.17) $0 $0 $0
Review and Abatement of Existing Hazardous
Structures ‐  review the structural engineer
recommendations
change to per hour
with 2 hour minimum
$497.00 $367.17 $129.83 $0 $0 $0
Review and Abatement of Existing Hazardous
Structures ‐  fail to voluntarily follow ‐up to abate
deficiencies in building structural elements
within required 365 days
twice the permit fee $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
Change of Contractor Remove fee $54.00 $0.00 $54.00 $0 $0 $0 Micrographics fee ( per $1,000 valuation) state fee $0.45 $0.45 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 STRONG MOTION INSTRUMENT FEES ‐ residential
buildings 1‐3 story ‐ $13 per $100,000 valuation
state fee $13.00 $13.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
STRONG MOTION INSTRUMENT FEES ‐
Commercial and residential buildings over 3‐
$ $
state fee $28.00 $28.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
STRONG MOTION INSTRUMENT FEES ‐ Mi nimum
fee ‐ $0.50
state fee $0.50 $0.50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
SB 1473 CBSC Fee_ Fee transmitted to State for
the agencies involved in Code development
with emphasis on the development, adoption,
publication, updating, and educational efforts
associated with green building standards.
state fee (per 100,000
in valuation)
$4.00 $4.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0
Per Customer Budget Impact

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 28

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 29

Permit Services

City of Santa Rosa
PED Permit Services ‐ 080102
FY 22‐23
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual
Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current
Recovery % Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
1B u i l d i n g Intake Fee (MEP permits only) new fee 784 56.28$ 74.65$ 75% 58,528$ 44,124$ 14,405$ 2 Planning Intake Fee new fee 919 ‐ $ 74.65$ 0% 68,606$ ‐ $ 68,606$ 6P R A Requests ‐ Non Billable Ti me non fee 1 ‐ $ 58,379$ 0% 58,379$ ‐ $ 58,379$ 7C r o s s Support to Building Construction Permits non fee 1 ‐ $ 1,521,048$ 0% 1,521,048$ ‐ $ 1,521,048$ Total User Fees $127,135 $44,124 $83,011
% of Full Cost 35% 65%
Per Unit Annual
Current

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 30

Planning

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 31

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 32

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 33

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 34

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 35

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 36

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 37

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 38

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 39

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 40

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 41

CHAPTER 2: APPENDIX A ‐ USER FEE RESULTS

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 42

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 43

Engineering

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 44

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 45

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 46

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 47

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 48

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 49

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 50

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 51

City of Santa Rosa, California  January 18, 2024
Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study  Final Draft Report Page | 52

Fire

Santa Rosa City CouncilJanuary 30, 2024

Santa Rosa City Council
January 30, 2024