HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-Public Works
.
.
0'-0
CWTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Oe No. 9.49 :)
- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Su bject:
Amendment of On-Site Plan Check
a nd Ins pect i on Fees and Engine
Plan Check Fees.
Dept:
Public Works/Engineering
Date:
6-08-88
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
7-15-85 -- Resolution No. 85-258 adopted establishing plan review
and permit fees for on-site improvement plans.
6-83 -- Resolution No. 83-210 adopted repealing Res. No. 13371, 79-273 and
Res. No. 79-254; and amending Resolution No. 79-43 and Resolution No.
80-441 setting fees.
7-83
-- Resolution No.83-228 adopted amending Resolution No. 83-210 by setting
Map Check fees.
Ways and Means Committee recommended approval.
6-27-88
Recommended motion:
Adopt Resolutions
cc: Jim Robbins
Jim Penman
Jim Richardson
/
../ /'~Y.
. .' / p' ///X"?r-;7'
...--x~ .'-1..-',.. .' {(.". ('.
Signature
Supporting data attached:
Staff Reports & Resolutions Ward:
5125
All
Contact person:
Gene R. Kl att
Phone:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source :
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No. /2. .
c'ITfOF SAN BERNARDI-'6 - REQUE~ FOR COUNCIL ACTYON
STAFF REPORT
In July of 1985, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a
resolution providing for on-site plan check and inspection fees
to be collected. Prior to that time, the Department of Public
Works did not inspect outside of the public right-of-way and
there was growing concern that'parking lots, on-site improvements
consisting of sewer, storm drains, lighting systems, curbs and
other such improvements, were not being constructed per plan
and in accordance with City standards. The on-site plan check
and inspection insured that construction was per plan and was
inspected for conformance with adopted standards.
Resolution 85-258 set fees based on the amount of con-
struction. It requires a detailed quantity estimate to be
provided and then fees may be calculated. The proposed resolu-
tion provides that the fees are based on a percentage of the
construction costs, being 0.25% for the plan check and 0.30%
for the inspection fee.
In 1987, staff surveyed other surrounding cities and
compared our fees with theirs. The above recommended percentages
were found to be about midway in the fee structure. If adopted,
this resolution will provide an equal basis for the inspection
and plan check fees based on the amount of work to be performed
by the City. More inspection, for example, will have a higher
inspection fee.
Portions of the original 1987 report on fees are attached
for review.
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Council adopt the
resolution setting forth the fees to be charged for on-site in-
spection and plan check.
6-08-88
. STY OF SAN BERQRDINO Q. MEMORANDUNP
RAY SCHWEITZER
To Acring City Administrator
Subject Engineering Fees and Development Fees
ROGER HARDGRAVE, Dir. of
From Public Works/City Engr.
Date March 17, 1987
File No. 9.49
, Approved
Date
During the past several months. staff has been investigating fees
and charges for development in surrounding communities and com-
paring it with our fee structure. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a
breakdown of the costs associated with three separate types of
development: a 45-unit, single-family tract. a 304-unit,apart-
ment complex and a service station on a commercial lot. These
projects have actually occurred in San Bernardino, and the fees
are the actual charges collected. Exhibit liB" is the present
"Chart System" now used to calculate fees. Information on each
development was provided to the other jurisdictions to obtain a
cost comparison. These are representative only and will vary
from project to project, but do reflect trends.
The attached charts do not have information on the total of all
fees collected. Specifically. they do not have building permit
or plan check fees. and in some instances other jurisdictions
have additional fees that they collect which have no counter-part
in the City. These additional fees were omitted in order to make
a clearer comparison on presently collected fees.
Fees have been broken into two separate and distinct categories
Engineering Fees and Development Fees. While Engineering Fees
are reimbursement for services provided in plan check and in-
spection of construction, development fees are collected to
offset costs associated with expansion of existing facilities or
to provide partial funding for major facilities yet to be con-
structed (i.e. storm drains. sewer systems).
ENGINEERING FEES:
A review of Exhibit "A" reveals that San Bernardino has the
highest fee structure of all agencies for commercial and multi-
family developments and very nearly the lowest for single-family
development. The current policy on multi-family development is
to collect map check and plan check fees on the number of units
within the development rather than on the amount of construction
to be done. Originally. this was instituted to provide protection
from costly condominium developments. in which plan checking amounts
to substantial time even though there is only one lot. it is
currently applied to apartments as well.
~!~,
"';'-11
~,,;:::
000
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No. 9.49
o
Page 2
In the case of the single-family development, fees are again based
on the number of units although the extent of construction is much
greater and the necessary inspection and plan check is also much
higher.
Commercial development encounters very high on. site plan check and
inspection charges as they are presently estimated by the chart
system.
Overall, Engineering fees represent only a small part of the total
cost per unit, generally less than 1-1/2% of the total. However,
there is a large disparity between the type of development and
between the comparable fees collected by other agencies. Adjust-
ments need to be made to accurately reflect the costs involved,
provide similar services at similar costs and relate costs to the
amount of work involved in the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Below is listed the recommended changes in the Engineering Fees:
1. MAP CHECKING FEE
CURRENT FEE
$200 + $10 per
Lot or Unit
2. IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECKING FEE (SUBDIVISIONS)
a) Residential Parcel
Map
$100 + $20 per
Lot or Unit
b) All Others
$200 + 20 per
Lot or Unit
c) Non Subdivision
Improvement Plan
Checking Fee
i
Based on Val ue I
of Work per I
Chart ____J
Based on Value
of Work per
Chart
3. IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION
FEE
4. ON-SITE PLAN CHECK
Based on Value
of Work per
Chart
RECOMMENDED FEE
$500 + $15 per
Lot (drop unit
charge) .
All plan checks
would be 2% of
estimated cost
of improvements
with a $50 min.
1.5% of Esti-
mated Cost of
Improvements
0.25% of Esti-
mated On-Site
Cost of
Improvements
.
000
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No. 9.49
()
Page 3
5. ON-SITE INSPECTION FEE Based on Value 0.30% of Esti-
of Work per mated On-Site
Chart Improvement
Costs
6. GRADING PLAN CHECK Based on No Change
Quantity of Recommended
Earthwork per
UCB
7. GRADING INSPECTION FEE Based on No Change
Quantity of Recommended
Earthwork per
UBC
COO
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No. 9.49
:>
Page 4
The numbers on the fees correlate with those in Exhibit "A".
Below is listed the amount of fees that would be collected for
the sample projects if the recommended changes were to be made.
PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE MONIES COLLECTED
(See Exhibit "A" for Comparison)
Single
Family
1. Map Checking
2. Improvement Plan
Checking
$ 1,175
$ 5,920
3. Improvement
Inspection
$ 4,440
4. On-site Plan Check
$
$
$ 135
$ 482
5. On-site Inspection
6. Grading Plan Check
7. Grading Inspection
TOTAL
$ 12,152
$ 270
Cost per Unit
Multi-
Family
$ 515
$ 3,580
$ 2,685
$ 837
$ 1,004
$ 75
$ 320
$ 9,015
$ 20.65
Commercial
$
$
420
$
315
$
$
$
$
64
77
30
126
$ 1,032
By comparison to current fees, commercial fees declined 47% and
multi-family fees declined 33%. Single-family fees increased
233%. However, the overall effect is to bring the City's fees
into accord with that charged by surrounding agencies, collect
for the services provided on an equal basis regardless of type of
development and relate fees to the actual cost of the improvements,
thereby eliminating the need to make periodic adjustments in the
"chart" used to calculate fees. Fees are tied to the actual cost
of construction and will fluctuate with the market and economy
rather than be set at some present level only to become out-dated.
.,
.
o Ray Schweitzer, City AdmQistrator 0
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No. 9.49
C)
Page
5
The proposed adjustments to Engineering Fees would bring the City
into line with surrounding agencies and provide for inflation or
deflation. It would also equalize the fees and base it on the
actual amount of work to be performed regardless of the type of
development. In view of the fact that the Engineering Fees account
for less than 1-1/2% of the total, the overall impact on develop-
ment would appear to be insignificant.
The Department sought input from the Finance Department in deter-
mining the amount of monies collected verses the actual costs of
the work performed. The Finance Department was able to supply
raw salary figures and dollars collected for the period 7/1/86
through 12/31/86. Analysis of this information is difficult as
monies are collected for inspections that are yet to be Performed,
no allowance is made for vehicles, tools and equipment, office
overhead, or support personnel used in the performance of the
required services (clerical, management, outside contracting for
prints or soils testing, etc.). A reasonable guess would be that
the actual costs would be in the range of 2.5 to 3 times the raw
salary costs provided all time was accurately reported.
Exhibit "C" shows the work orders, salary, adjusted salary, monies
collected and the percentage over or under actual costs. Again,
it must be noted that the inspection services are paid for in
advance of the work performed whereas the other items are paid
after the work is complete. Inspection work is not yet complete
on many of the projects that are reflected in the study period.
We are collecting anywhere from 800% to 30% less than the true
costs of the work performed. This conclusion is further supported
by the costs associated with outside plan check services. A review
of the recent projects sent out for consultant plan check at the
developer's request and those initiated by the City show the con-
sultants collecting 2.5 to 3 times the fees collected by the City
for the same work. Considering our true cost is 2.5 times salary
in this analysis and the consultants are billing for actual time
used, we are still the 800% to 30% below true costs.
It is apparent from this analysis that public agencies, as a whole,
collect fees below actual costs. This is in accord with the public
service we are providing and is perhaps justified. However, the
present City fee structure is in need of adjustment and is well
substantiated by the true cost data in our own records and the
comparison to other jurisdictions in the immediate area.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
GENE R. KLATT
Assistant City Engineer
GRK:pa
Attach.
.
=
<
=
I-
co
-
x
><
w
I-
U
<
'"
I-
VI
>- w
-' w
- ....
:E
< '"
.... z:
-
w '"
-' ...,
'" w
z: z:
- -
VI '"
z:
I- W
o
-'
,
'"
...
Q
, W
oV>
"'0
C>.C>.
...,
W
....
>-
I-
z:
=>
o
u
co
V>
<
z:
<
I-
z:
o
....
z:
o
I-
-'
o
U
W
Q
V>
'"
W
>
'"
o
Z
Q
'"
<
z
'"
W
CO
Z
<
VI
W
W
....
....
o
W
C>.
>-
I-
'"
.....
-
....
-
I-~
V>
oz
u_ '"
:E '"
-' '"
<0
=>0 '"
1-0
u....
<- -
o M
o ....
.... N
- ....
-
'"
N
...
....
-
'"
.....
CO
-
o
'"
'"
-
'"
u
...,
x
u
C>.
<
:IE:
-'
<
z:
....
....
o 0
N ...
'" ...
'" ...
-
N
N
'"
....
....
....
.....
'"
'"
o
o
....
....
'"
u
...,
:&::
U
z:
<
-'
C>.
I-
z:
...,
:IE:
W
>
o
'"
C>.
:E
-
N
....
... z: z:
'" -
...
'" W ...,
.... z: z:
'" 0 0
z: z:
....
....
M
...
o
....
co
M
o
M
co
N
CO
N
z:
o
I-
U
W
C>.
V>
z:
-
I-
z:
W
:E
...,
>
o
'"
C>.
:E
-
M
,
o
,
'" '"
z: z:
- -
Q Q
< <
'" '"
'" '"
-' -'
u u
z: z:
- -
W
z:
o
z:
W
z:
o
z:
,
o
,
'"
u
W
X
U
z:
<
-'
C>.
...,
I-
-
V>
,
z:
o
...
,
o
,
W
Z
o
Z
W
Z
o
z:
,
o
,
z
o
-
I-
U
W
C>.
V>
z:
-
W
I-
-
V>
,
z:
o
'"
o
'"
M
....
N N 0
CO '" .....
... .... N
N
....
- -
z:
- ....
:E '"
...
'"
....
'" '" '"
'" .... .....
'" '" M
'"
....
- -
o
'"
.... 0 '"
N ... '"
M M
...
- -
o
'"
.... '" .....
N CO M
M .... '"
...
N
- -
o
'"
.... '" N
N '" N
M '" N
'"
- -
'"
M
....
N '" '"
CO '" ....
... .... ....
'"
- -
'"
u
...,
X
U
z -' I-
0<-
_ I- z:
I- 0 =>
U I-
W '"
C>. W
V> C>.
z:
z:
<
-'
C>.
l-
V>
'" 0
z: U
Q
< '"
'" >
'" <
'"
z:
-
Q
<
'"
'"
'"
.....
...
...
M
'"
....
....
...
...
'"
'"
z
...,
W
W
....
Q
, W
OV>
"'0
C>.C>.
V>
I-
-
z:
=>
...
o
M
V>
W
W
....
><
W
-'
C>.
:E
o
U
I-
z:
W
:IE:
I-
'"
<
C>.
<
'"
z
-
'"
W
...,
z:
-
'"
z:
W
o
'"
....
'"
-
>-
I-
z:
=>
o
U
co
VI
<
z
<
I-
z:
o
....
z
o 0
I- 0
-' '"
o
U .....
-
W
Q '"
- ....
V> N
'"
W
>
-
'" -
o
z:
Q
'"
<
z:
'"
W
CO
z:
<
V>
W
W
....
....
o
...,
C>.
>-
I-
I-~
V>
Oz:
U_ ...
20 0
-' '"
<0
=>0 ...
1-0
U....
<- -
o '"
N CO
N N
-
o
...
N
M
-
'"
z:
-
'"
U
W
X
U
C>.
<
20
....
o
CO
'"
M
'"
CO
'"
'"
.....
M
CO
... '"
o .....
o
.
....
'" '"
z: z:
- -
Q Q
< <
'" '"
'" '"
CO N .....
CO z: z: CO CO
r.... _ _ C"")
....
-' -'
U U
z: z:
- -
\D LLJ L&J 0 ('I')
0'\ Z Z Ln ......
\D 0 0 N
z: z:
CO
M
....
'"
N
o
'"
M
o
CO
'"
'"
'"
U
W
X
U
z:
<
-'
C>.
I-
z:
W
20
W
>
o
'"
C>.
20
-
N
....
.....
M
'"
'"
....
...
....
CO
CO
.....
....
z:
o
-
I-
U
...,
C>.
VI
z:
-
I-
z:
...,
20
W
>
o
'"
C>.
20
-
M
M
'"
'"
W
z:
o
z:
...
...
.....
'"
U
W
X
U
z:
<
-'
C>.
W
l-
V>
,
z:
o
...
...
...
o
....
W
z:
o
z:
M
...
o
....
z:
o
-
I-
U
W
C>.
V>
z:
-
W
I-
-
V>
,
z:
o
'"
o
'"
o
'"
'"
.....
>-
U
o
o
...
...
M
'"
U
W
X
U
Z
<
-'
C>.
'"
z:
-
Q
<
'"
'"
'"
o
N
M
"
'" "
.... "
0"
"
'" "
"
-
z "
-"
20"
"
..."
..."
N "
. "
....."
"
"
-"
M
....
N
M
....
N
o
N
M
>-
U
o
o
...
...
M
z:
o
-
I-
U
...,
C>.
V>
z:
-
'"
Z
-
Q
<
'"
'"
.....
~o
o
N
'"
.....
M
N
-
... "
'" "
... "
"
.... "
"
-"
N
CO
...
-
N
M
'" "
..... "
M"
"
.... "
N"
-"
o
.....
-
'" "
"'''
M"
."
'" "
"
"
-"
'"
.....
.....
....
-
.....
M
0"
'" "
..."
. "
M"
...."
-"
...
...
-
-'
<
I-
o
I-
'"
'"
z:
W
I-
-
z:
=>
'"
W
C>.
l-
V>
o
U
c 0 0 .0
~
~
~ "
0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ., N "
C N - ., ~ M N M "
O~ ~ M - 0 "
O~ . "
~O - "
~~ ~ ~
> ~ ~
~ Z Z
Z - -
~ C C
0 < <
U ~ - ~ ~ ro ~ ~ "
~ - ~ ~ N ~ M "
ro N '- '- - N "
3 3 . "
ro - "
~ ~ "
U U "
~ ~ Z Z ~ "
-
~
0 ~ ~
~ Z Z
- -
~ < C C
Z Z < <
0 < ro ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ "
~ M 0 ~ ~ N ro ~ "
Z ~ N '- '- 0 "
0 3 3 . "
Z ~ - "
0 ~ ~ "
- ~ U U ~ "
~ Z Z
<
~
~
~
~ ~ Z ~ 0 - ro 0 ~ ., "
U ~ 0 ~ M - 0 N ro ~ "
- ~ ~ ro N - - M "
> ~ . "
~ ~ 0 - "
~ Z U "
~ "
~ ~ ~ "
~
~
~ Z
Z -
~ ~
~ Z ~
~ ~ C
0 M N ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ "
~ ~ N ~ Z Z N ro ~ "
~ ~ ~ M C 0 ro "
> ~ Z Z . "
~ > - - "
C "
~ ~ ~ "
~
<
-
U
~ 0
~ Z
~ -
~ C
0 ~ ~ - ro 0 0 ~ 0 "
U < 0 ~ ~ ~ M N ~ "
Z N M ~ ~ - ~ "
~ . "
~ - "
ro "
~ ~ "
Z > >
< U U
~
0 0
0 0
~ Z N N
U 0 ~ - -
~ Z
~ ~
U U ~ Z ~ Z
~ U 0 U 0
~ Z ~ ~ - ~ -
~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ Z U U U U <
~ - ~ ~ ~
~ Z ~ Z ~ 0
0 ~ ~ < ~ < ~ ~
Z Z ~ Z ~ Z
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
~ ~ ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ > > ~ ~ Z Z
0 0 - -
~ ~ ~ ~ C C
~ ~ 0 , < <
~ ~ Z Z ~ ~
- 0 0 ~ ~
- N M ~ ~ ~
o
101-SU'0IlISIOI
C
at fll"OPIUI r
o
~
I. "'-IITI ISTIIITI 11,..,rIIIT 'LA I CIICI. III'ICTIOI AIO STAIII, '111 'IISO. .J-'Ol'
"'AI I ,
-llI! eifel ru Ils,rcnOI 'IE l'UIIT 'IU
evil I '-41' L' . ...U/V
.UTYII . '.I./L' .. - 100. L' . 1100.00 . ".II/V
0111 1000 LF . Ilto.OO . SO.IOIV
ClOII . O.OIlSF o - 2000 S, . SO. lOIS'
'UTYII 2001 - 5000 S, . 1200.00 . 10.01/S'
01E1 1000 SF. I~IO.OO . 10.02fS'
OIlIEIAY I 0.02/1' o . no s, . SO.201S.' .
."IGAeI 111 - 750 S, . SID . .. . 101 SF
I UOl' 7U - 1000 S, . 1100 . ".OIlS'
IALI 01E1 2000 SF. 11'2.10 . 10.02/S'
IlTAIIII. I O.ll/SF o - no SF. SO.IS/S'
IALL 251 . 100 S, . 112.S0 . 10.20/S'
01E1 100 S, . 1111.10 . 10.11/S'
"1E1"T I 0.25/100 S, o - 1000 S, . Sl.OOllOO S,
1001 - ~O.OOO S, . no . SO.501100 S,
0111 ~O.OOO SF. 1175 . 10.21/100 SF
"II". 110,n
lASE
SIIII I O.IOlL'
IAII
IUIOU I 1.00llA
I
CLIU OUT
o - 1000
SOOl - ~O.OOO
"II ~O.OOO
S, .
S, .
SF .
".25/100 SF
112.10 . 10.11/100 5'
no . SO. 101 100 SF
o - 110 L' . SO.II/L'
III - 100 L' . 1~7.10 . 10.20/L'
OTll 100 L' . 1107.50 . 10.1IfL'
i 01
I -
01E1
LESS' 11I.00/EA
10 . 110 . 112.00/EA
10 . 1120 . 110.00/EA
STOll
DUll
I O.25IV
o - iOO L' . 10.20/L'
iOl - SOO L' . 110 . ID.17/L'
O'EI 100 L' . "7 . 10.11/L'
CATCI
'ASII
I 10.00/lA
i L' 01
5 - 11
01E1 11
LUI
L'
L'
. IU.OOllA
. 11I.00llA
'. nO.OOllA
.01 I D.IO/L'
CULYIIT
5TRUT 11 UTIIATII
LI.IY cOInllClIOI
COST
TRAF"C 11 UTIIATlO
Sl'UL COUTlUCTIOI
COST
o - 100 S, . 10.10/S'
101 - 21D SF . 110 . ".~IISF
O'EI 2.. S, . 1102.S0 . 10.21/S'
II EITIIATIO COISTIUCTIOI COST
II ESTIIATID tOISTIUCTIOI COST
IIS'ECTIDI OUTS lor SCIlDULED
101111. .IS . 120.ID/IAI .1
STAlll. ,rr II' A"LICAILEI
SAIl AS IIS'ECTIOI
o . 2000 SF . 10.IOlS'
2001 - 1000 SF . noo . 10.0515'
OUI SOlO SF . sno . 1O.03/S'
lOT A"LICAlLE
o - lIO . 10.101S'
211 - 100 . S21 . 10.0./S'
0.11 100' Iii . 10.05/S'
o - 100.
SOOl - ~O.OOO
0111 ~O.OOO
S, . 10.10/100 5'
SF . Ii. . ".101100 SF
SF . 1111 . ".251100. SF
lOT ."LICAlLE
o - 110 L' . 10.10/L'
III - 10. L' . 110 . SO'.JI/L'
O'EI SOO L' . 11'2.10 . 10.21/L'
lOT A"LICAILE
o - iOO L' . 10.50/LF
iOl . 100 LF . noo . 10.~51L'
o.U 100 LF . U35 . $O.~O/L'
SAil .5 IIS'ECTIOI
o - 100 S, . 1O.11/SF
101 - liD 5F . US . 10.2015F
OIU no SF . 155 . 10.II/SF
lOT ."L ItAlLE
lOT ."L1CAlLE
SUI'ET 'AITT OUTSIDE
101111. '1 . 560,00/11
01 FlACTlOM THEllOF
1. A".. i""eaU.. ft. .f SSO.OO nill h ,.,. fo, 01" ..,lIeaclo. ft, .ff..th ,h. ....U., fo, ..._
....",.t.. ....,.,...c..
,.'
2. A ,.,.It .,,"eut.. ,.. .f Sl.50 ....11 .. '.11 f., .... ."lIeaclo. 'or. .ff-.H. t."......u ,...te
t..,..c'.,. ",.,... ."-.,,, ,...'c ,.. I. ".00.
EXHIBIT "B"
p,.no 1 nl ?
"
.. . ~. 1~'IOIt~[MT 'LU CMlCl IIS'EtTIOI '"0 ST'llli FEES llullCI' L CODE SICT. .11 '~
. - .
'U. , ,
!II! CICCI '11 11I'ICTIO. ,EI STAir.. ,.:1
cnl I I I."I/L' I. ... L' . 10.01/L' 'OT I"U CA'U
..TTII II' . 'I" L' . I" . O..,./L'
.nl 10.. L' . ... . '..,./L'
'U.TII . '.IU/L' I . 48. L' . IO..UIL' lOT ."U CIOU
CUI' ... . 1000 Lf . 11. . '.'I/V
onl I.H L' . ... . '..UIL'
.
ct.1I . . 0.'111' o . ".. Sf. IO..U'" lOT I"U CIIU
1..10. 'HI . 100. Sf. U. . 10.'"''
.UTUI .nl 10.. .,. 110 . ".00""
S1oe'ILI I ...."., . . n. If. 10."1" I.T l"UCAlU
UI . 710 $f. '1'." . "..,1/.'
711 . ZOOO S, . U' . S'.O"$f
onl zo.. S, . SI7." . I'.U../S'
PAnllCIT I ..../l.. ., . . ....0 S, . .0.1.110. S, lOT ..'LlCAIU
1001 . 1'.000 If . 'U.IO . IO.U"1f
.nl 10,'00 s, . '.'.7' . ...../S'
..I..I.C '.11 UTtIlATU U., ESTIIIITCO COISTIUCTI.I C.IT lOT ."U CI.U
,.cnnUI' COIITlUCTt.1
CII'
""IU I ,..,"L' . . 110 L' . IO.UIL' lOT l"UCAlU
uwn III . I" Lf . 110 . IO.IOIL'
111111 .nl 500 L' . UI . SO.OtlL'
I..UIAU . . .... s, . 10. UII.. S, lOT I"UCA.U
UU .001 . 10,00' Sf . II . '0."/10' S,
.nl 10.... S, . SII.'O . ...../100 .,
ulln - 10 'EE
CUU'UTS
I
II.U.L U
!W1l
I. ." ...-....",.,.. ,I.. ....t,., f... .,. ... wit. ...... "..
z. A Trlllcllfa, P.,.tt .".11 It. rIQut,.tI ". t", Sl.,. Dhhha If
,rtor 'I t.I..8CI of . p.r.', II 1"1,.11 ....r. ., Ic.r. ."tll'
to
....t ....'tt.I.
I....t',., S.f.t,
.".r .. ,I..p..
I. il"II' 'L'I CMCel II' I~S'CCTIOI 'EC. IU.'.c. '1' TITLE II IUllel"L COOll
~... .. S..,',','," "..t., '1.. C..., ... I..,..t'.. ,.... S.. ,.,. I.
EXHIBIT "B"
Paae 2 af 2
,.
1
C- O 0 C)
.
l-
V')
... 0
u u
zz "" ""
......... "" "" 0 "" co ""
"'... 0 ..... 0 0 N .....
...::aC .... N co ID N ....
.... 1-'"
.......1- +
....COU
Cl ...
-'
"" -'
0
U = -
U
= ~
Cl 0
... 0 0 ..... 0 1.1'> .. l-
I- .. 1.1'> - 1.1'> ID .... ....-
U co
... N 0 .... ..... .. ID ....CU
-' N ..... - ID 1.1'> - :l: ."
0 1.1'> 1.1'> N 1.1'> ID x..
-' . . . ......
0 0 0\ .... co 1.1'> ....
U ID - -
.... - .... - - -
....
I-
Cl V')
... 0
I- ID U
U co 0 0 0 0 0 0
... I ...
-' - ~ 0 0 <:> 0 0 0
-' .... '"
0 I l- N CO .. CO CO ....
U N CO .. .. ID .. CO
.... C 0 CO 1.1'> N N ID
V') ... . . . .
... I- ID .. .... .... CO CO
.... 0 < .. N .... .... .... ....
Z ... :E - .... .... .... .... ....
0 ....
:E I-
ID V')
... CO ...
> I
....
l- I
V') .....
0 1.1'> N 1.1'> .... 0
U >- .....
'" ID 0 ID 1.1'> .... 1.1'>
< N 0\ ..... ..... 0\ ....
-' .... .... - 0 0\ .....
< .. .... ID .... N ..
V') . .
::a CO 0\ N 1.1'> ..... .....
< .... -
'" - - - .... .... ....
'"'
U
...
:l:
Z '"' U
... Z 0 U
0 .... ... Z
'" .... I- :l: Z <
... I- U U 0 -'
C U ... .... ...
'" ... ... Z V')
... V') < .... Z
0 V') Z -' >'"' 0
'"' Z .... ... '"' ....U ....
.... U C... V')
'" (!l (!l ... COX ....
0 Z Z X ~U >
::a I- .... .... U V') ....
....V') NCl .... Cl 1.1'> ID IZ COCl
I.I'>Z 1.1'>< 1.1'>< 1.1'>'" I.I'>Z< 1.1'> CO
NO N'" N'" N< NO-' N~
....U ....(!l ....(!l ....:E ....Z... ....V')
c
o
o
o
1
2 RESOLUTION
3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ESTABLISHING ON-
SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW FEES AND PERMIT FEES
4
5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
7
SECTION 1:
Resolution No. 85-258, Section 1 is amended
8 as follows:
9
SECTION 1.
Findings. The Mayor and Common Council hereby
10 find:
11
A.
Hearing has been held by the Mayor and Common Council
l2 pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54990, et
l3 seq., to consider the levy of new and additional fees and service
14 charges for various services provided by the Department of Public
15 Works/City Engineer, which hearing was held following public
16 notice published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
17 City of San Bernardino.
l8
B.
None of the proposed increases exceed the actual cost
19 of providing such services and, for those services which are not
20 completely paid for by the proposed fees, the additional expense
21 to the City of providing the services shall be borne by the
22 general fund of the City of San Bernardino.
23
C.
The proposed fees and charges are reasonable and
24 necessary to enable the City of San Bernardino. to more nearly
25 meet the actual costs of providing such services.
26
SECTION 2.
Implementation.
Effective August 1, 1988,
27 service fees as hereinafter set forth shall be effective within
28
JFW:ss
July 15, 1988
1
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
the City of San Bernardino.
SECTION 3: Section 2 of Resolution No. 85-258 is amended
to read as follows:
Pursuant to Section 15.04.175 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code, on-site improvement plan review fees shall be
0.25% of the estimated cost of the on-site improvements shown on
the plans.
SECTION 4:
Section 3 of Resolution No. 85-258 is amended
to read as follows:
Pursuant to Section 15.04.177 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code, on-site improvement permit fees shall be 0.30% of
the estimated cost of the on-site improvements being inspected.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution
was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of
San Bernardino, at a meeting held on the
day of , 19__, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
JFW:ss
July 15, 1988
2
"
o
RESO: ESTABLISHIN~-SITE IMPRO~NT PLAN REVIEW FEES
AND PERMIT FEES
o
1
2
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
3
day of
,l9_.
4
5
Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
6
Approved as to form
7 and legal con ent:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25,
26
27
29
JFW:ss
July 15, 1988
3
l
l
L1L
c
o
o
o
1
2 RESOLUTION
3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 83-20l ENTITLED, IN PART, "RESOLUTION MODIFYING
4 FEES... ENGINEERING SERVICES. ." ESTABLISHING PLAN CHECK AND
INSPECTION FEES AND INCORPORATING RESOLUTION NO. 83-228
5 AMENDMENTS.
6 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
7 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
8
SECTION 1:
Resolution No. 83-201, Section 1 is hereby
9 amended to read as follows:
10
SECTION l. Findings. The Mayor and Common Council hereby
II find:
12
A.
Hearing has been held by the Mayor and Common Council
13 pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54990, et
14 seq., to consider the levy of new and additional fees and
l5 service charges for various services provided by the Department
16 of Public Works/City Engineer, which hearing was held following
17 public notice published in a newspaper of general circulation in
18 the City of San Bernardino.
19
B.
None of the proposed increases exceed the actual cost
20 of providing such services and, for those services which are not
2l completely paid for by the proposed fees, the additional expense
22 to the City of providing the services shall be borne by the
23 general fund of the City of San Bernardino.
24
C.
The proposed fees are reasonable and necessary to
25 enable the City of San Bernardino to more nearly meet the actual
26 costs of providing such services and facilities.
27
SECTION 2.
Resolution No. 83-20l, Section 2, is hereby
28
JFW:ss
July 15, 1988
1
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
-
o
o
o
amended to read:
Implementation. Effective August 1, 1988, the service fees
and charges as hereinafter set forth shall be effective within
the City of San Bernardino.
SECTION 3:
Resolution No. 83-201, Section 2, Subsection
II-A, is amended to read as follows:
II. Department of Public Works/City gngineer Plan Check
Fees
A. Plan check fees for all improvement plans,
including, but not limited to, street improvement plans,
subdivision improvement plans, non-residential parcel map
improvement plans, and residential improvement plans shall be set
at 2% of the estimated cost of improvements shown on the plans,
with a $50 minimum charge.
SECTION 4.
Resolution No. 83-201, Section 2, Subsection
II-B, is amended to read as follows:
B. Inspection and Staking Fees
Inspection fees shall be 1.5% of the estimated cost of the
improvements covered by the permit.
Staking fees shall be the
combined hourly wage rate of the survey crew, multiplied by the
numbers of hours worked, multiplied by three (3).
SECTION 5.
Resolution No. 83-201, Section 2, Subsection
II-C, is added to read as follows:
C.Map filing fee shall be $500, plus $15 per lot or
parcel. Certificate of Compliance filing fee shall be SlOO.
SECTION 6. Resolution No. 83-228 is hereby repealed.
JFW: ss 2
July 15, 1988
.
c
1,,,50: AMENDING ~ 83-201 AND ~ORPORATING RESO fjJ-228 0
AMENDMENTS \J \J
1
2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was
3 duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
10
11
12
13
14
4
5
6
7
8
9
15
l6
Bernardino, at a
of
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
meeting held on the
, 19__, by the following vote, to wit:
day
Council Members
City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
, 19
Approved as to form
17 an legal content:
1
l8 /~
Attorney
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JFW:ss
July 15, 1988
Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
3
C'IT~ OF SAN BERNARDIQ - REQUE9r FOR COUNCIL AC1il>>N
STAFF REPORT
In March of 1987, after several months of investigation,
Engineering staff prepared a memo recommending increasing fees in
several areas as they related to engineering fees.
During the 1987/88 budget review, the Mayor and Council
again considered the increases in fees as a means of cost recovery
for services provided. In September of 1987, staff provided the
necessary information for action on the implementation of the in-
creased fees.
Engineering staff has now prepared the following resolution
for consideration of the Mayor and Common Council to adopt increased
fees in general accord with the recommendations of March, 1987.
A public notice has been posted in the Engineering Department,
third floor of City Hall, since mid May, to serve as public notice
of the proposed action.
Resolution 83-201, as amended by Resolution 83-228, sets
forth the current charges for the services of plan check and in-
spection on a variety of project types. These fees, set in 1983,
have remained unchanged since adoption in 1983.
The proposed resolution will place the City of San Bernardino
at approximately the middle range of similar fees collected by adja-
cent agencies. Copies of the original report sections are attached
for review. It must be remembered that this survey of fees was
conducted in late 1986 and early 1987. The data collection takes
several months and was dated when presented in 1987. It must be
assumed that the surrounding agencies have .again adjusted their fees
to more closely approximate actual costs for the services.
The attached resolution eliminates much of the "calculation"
necessary in determining existing fees. Presently, a sliding
scale for each improvement is used with all items being computed.
In most instances, the developer has his construction estimate and
may be required to bond to the City for the improvement costs. By
using a fixed percentage of the construction costs for the items
being checked or inspected, equal value is received by all develop-
ments, and fees are directly related to the cost of the service
provided. In addition to the above, the percentage approach
eliminates the need to adjust fees for increased costs or infla-
tion as it is already accounted for in the construction cost
estimated.
Staff, therefore, recommends that the Mayor and Common
Council adopt the resolution setting the revised fees.
6-13-88
75-0264