HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-25 e-packet@2:00Thursday, May 25, 2017
2:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Budget Standing Committee of the City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
May 25, 2017Budget Standing Committee of the
City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the Budget Subcommittee of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on
Wednesday, May 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., at City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room, 400 Grand
Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Call To Order.
Roll Call.
Public Comments.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting of May 3, 2017.1.
Report regarding study session on Fee Study results and certain Developer Impact
Fees (Richard Lee, Director of Finance)
2.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:17-516 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:1.
Motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting of May 3, 2017.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding study session on Fee Study results and certain Developer Impact Fees (Richard Lee,Director
of Finance)
I. RECOMMENDATION
No formal action is required at this time.Staff requests that the Budget Standing Committee of the City
Council review the information contained in this report and provide City staff with feedback and
direction.
II. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As part of the FY 2016-17 budget development cycle,staff recommended that the City conduct a
comprehensive review of its fees-for-service and its Developer Impact Fees (DIF).Consistent with Proposition
218 and Proposition 26,the City has the authority to set its fees-for-services at a rate which reflects the
reasonable cost to provide the regulatory act or service.This fee setting process is supported by a fee study,
which serves to:
1.Calculate fees in compliance with federal guidelines;
2.Ensure a reasonable cost to provide services; and
3.Set fees up to a rate that recovers the City’s cost to provide the service.
The City Council concurred with staff’s recommendation to review the City’s fees for services,manifested by
its approval of an appropriation for the fee studies in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget.The Fee Study
and DIF review efforts are also in alignment with two of the City’s overall strategic initiatives:
1.To pursue financial stability to support City operations; and
2.Build and maintain a sustainable city.
III. User Fees (Fees-for-Services)
Staff solicited proposals from three qualified firms and entered into a consulting services with NBS
Government Finance Group (NBS), based on their qualifications, experience and proposed cost.
Prior to conducting the fee study and rate setting,NBS completed a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP),which
ultimately determined a Productive Hourly Rate (PHR)for all staff members that provide a direct service to
members of the public.The PHR was calculated using the following process,which is dictated by guidelines
contained within the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.
1.Determined which departments provide indirect services.These typically include City Council,
City Clerk, City Manager, Human Resources, and other city administrative departments;
2.Calculated the reasonably hourly rate for staff members within the indirect service departments.
The indirect service hourly rate included salary, incentives and the cost of all benefits;
3.Reviewed all other costs incurred by indirect departments and determined which were eligible to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 1 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
be included in the cost allocation plan; and
4.Identified an appropriate basis to allocate all eligible indirect department costs to those
departments that provide direct services to members of the public.Those direct service departments
typically include the Police,Fire,Library,Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments.
Indirect costs can be allocated to direct services in a number of different ways.The City’s CAP
primarily used the following allocation methods:
a.Building Occupancy by Department;
b.Net Expenses per Fund/Department; and
c.FTE Count by Fund/Department.
In order to determine appropriate cost allocations,NBS conducted extensive interviews with staff from each
department that provide direct services over the past three months.Through the interview process,NBS was
able to determine the amount of time,on average,that staff spends on each service listed on the City’s Master
Fee Schedule.Following completion of the information gathering phase,NBS’calculations determined the
City’s current cost recovery rate as well as the potential full cost recovery rate.Staff recommends that certain
fees recover costs at a rate less than full cost recovery,primarily for affordability and market purposes.The
recommended fees are attached herein as Attachment 1.
New fees and recommended fee changes are discussed in greater detail below where the projected change in
annual revenues is $50,000 or greater:
Economic and Community Development Department - Planning
Conditional Use Permit - Increase fee from $650 to $3,273
The current fee for a Residential or Civic Conditional Use Permit is $650.Based on the results of the Fee
Study,the Recommended Fee Level (and Full Cost Recovery Rate)is $3,273;an increase of $2,623.Based on
the average number of times the City issues a Conditional Use Permit per year (Estimated Volume of Activity),
the change in rate would generate an additional $62,953 in annual revenue.
Zoning Text Amendment - Increase fee from $2,000 to $8,155
The current fee for Zoning Text Amendment services is $2,000.Based on the results of the Fee Study,the
Recommended Fee Level (and Full Cost Recovery Rate)is $8,155;an increase of $6,155.Based on the average
number of times the City provides Zoning Text Amendment services per year (Estimated Volume of Activity),
the change in rate would generate an additional $92,323 in annual revenue.
Multi-Family Residential Design Review - Increase fee from $300 to $2,291
The current fee for a Multi-Family Residential Design Review services is $300.Based on the results of the Fee
Study,the Recommended Fee Level (and Full Cost Recovery Rate)is $2,291;an increase of $1,991.Based on
the average number of times the City provides Multi-Family Residential Design Review services per year
(Estimated Volume of Activity), the change in rate would generate an additional $95,590 in annual revenue.
Economic and Community Development Department - Building
Building Inspection - Increase from $6,217 to $15,868
The current fee for Building Inspection services on permits valued between $10 million and $25 million is
$6,217.The Fee Study recommends a fee of $15,868.Based on the average number of times the City provides
building inspection services within this valuation tier,the change in rate would generate an additional $289,962
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 2 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
in annual revenue.
Building Plan Checking - Increase from $4,586 to $23,273
The current fee for Building Plan Checking services for permits valued between $10 million to $25 million is
$4,586.Based on the results of the Fee Study,the Recommended Fee Level (and Full Cost Recovery Rate)is
$23,273;an increase of $18,687.Based on the average number of times the City provides Building Plan
Checking services per year within this valuation tier (Estimated Volume of Activity),the change in rate would
generate an additional $186,873 in annual revenue.
Police Department
New Fee for Ammunition Storage Administration - $135
Pursuant to California Penal Code (PC) Section 33880, cities or counties may impose a charge
equal to its administrative costs related to the seizure,storage,impounding or release of ammunition.Based on
the anticipated time increment and Police Department staff required to provide the service,the full cost
recovery rate was calculated to be $135.Further,staff anticipates that this service fee will generate over
$70,000 per year.
Fire Department
Fire and Life Safety - Plan Check - Increase fee from $2,243 to $10,630
Fire and Life Safety Plan Check service fees are recommended to increase from $2,243 to $10,630 for permits
valued over $1,000,000 based on the results of the Fee Study.Based on the average number of times City staff
provides this service per year (Estimated Volume of Activity),the change in rate would generate an additional
$478,037 in annual revenue.
Public Works Department
Improvement Plan Check - Increase fee from $300 to $575
The current fee for Improvement Plan Check services is $300.Based on the results of the Fee Study,the
Recommended Fee Level (and Full Cost Recovery Rate)is $575;an increase of $275.Based on the average
number of times the City provides Improvement Plan Check services per year (Estimated Volume of Activity),
the change in rate would generate an additional $100,952 in annual revenue.
Improvement Inspection - Increase fee from $200 to $431
The current fee for Improvement Inspection services is $200.Based on the results of the Fee Study,the
Recommended Fee Level (and Full Cost Recovery Rate)is $431;an increase of $231.Based on the average
number of times the City provides Improvement Plan Check services per year (Estimated Volume of Activity),
the change in rate would generate an additional $84,889 in annual revenue.
Parks and Recreation Department
The Fee Study evaluated cost recovery efforts in the Parks and Recreation Department on a program basis,a
common fee study practice. A number of the programs returned reasonable cost recovery rates:
·Rentals/Picnics - 99%;
·Classes Events - 80%
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 3 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
·Childcare - 72%
Staff proposes an increase of five percent for Parks and Recreation fees.The Fee Study will be completed over
the next year, and focus on the programs that are currently below desired cost recovery rates.
IV. Developer Impact Fees
NBS partnered with Michael Baker International (MBI)to review the City’s Developer Impact Fees (DIF).The
City is authorized to charge DIFs pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act,which permits local agencies to establish
and collect a fee as a condition of approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying the cost of
public facilities required to serve that particular development project.While the City intends to review all of its
currently adopted DIFs over the next year,the DIFs that will be discussed and reviewed first are the Park Land
Acquisition and Construction Fee,the Sewer Capacity Fee,and a new proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian
Capacity Fee.
Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee
In 2016,the Municipal Resource Group,prepared the 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
Report for the City of South San Francisco.Based on this study,and pursuant to the authority provided by the
Mitigation Fee Act,the City adopted Chapter 8.67 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC),
which provides for the imposition of a parkland acquisition and construction fee for residential development
projects not subject to the City’s existing Quimby Act fee.Further,the 2016 Park Land Acquisition and Park
Construction Fees Report also contained analysis that the City used to update its existing Quimby Act
parkland dedication fee ordinance (SSFMC Sections 19.24.030-120).MBI provided a comparison of the City’s
existing parkland acquisition and construction fees in comparison to the fees charged by comparable
jurisdictions.
Table 1.4 and 1.5 of this staff report show the park fees charged in selected cities comparable to South San
Francisco.The fees for single-family homes range from $17,100 in Redwood City to $60,206 in Palo Alto with
an average of $31,000.Pursuant to the City’s authority under the Mitigation Fee Act,the 2016 Park Land
Acquisition and Park Construction Fees Report by Municipal Resource Group,LLC,recommended the park
land acquisition and park construction fee schedule for residential development shown in Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1: Park Fees Comparison
Units in Structure Acquisition
Fee per Unit
Construction Fee
(Increased by
CCI)
Maximum
Park Fees
Allowed
Current
Park Fees
Recommend
Park Fees
Single-family $31,050 $10,556 $41,206 $20,603 $29,124
Duplex to four-plex $26,820 $9,118 $35,592 $17,796 $25,157
5 to 19 $22,770 $7,741 $30,218 $15,109 $21,358
20 to 49 $18,630 $6,242 $24,365 $12,183 $17,221
50 or more $16,020 $5,446 $21,260 $10,630 $15,026
Mobile Homes $23,850 $8,108 $31,651 $15,825 $22,371
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 4 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
Units in Structure AcquisitionFee per Unit Construction Fee(Increased by
CCI)
MaximumPark Fees
Allowed
CurrentPark Fees RecommendPark Fees
Single-family $31,050 $10,556 $41,206 $20,603 $29,124
Duplex to four-plex $26,820 $9,118 $35,592 $17,796 $25,157
5 to 19 $22,770 $7,741 $30,218 $15,109 $21,358
20 to 49 $18,630 $6,242 $24,365 $12,183 $17,221
50 or more $16,020 $5,446 $21,260 $10,630 $15,026
Mobile Homes $23,850 $8,108 $31,651 $15,825 $22,371
The fees in Table 1.1 above are based on a study of market values of land in South San Francisco
commissioned by the City to support the findings of the Municipal Resource Group 2016 fee study.The market
value appraisal found the weighted average cost of land in the city to be $3.0 million per acre.The other factors
involved in the recommended fees are the current park acreage standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents,the
expected occupancy of the units,and the cost of $981,250 per acre to improve park land (including construction
and soft costs)in order to provide the future park needs and level of park amenities as described in the City’s
2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan.Staff recommends amending the park fee ordinance to increase the
construction cost by the Engineering Record News Construction Cost Index (CCI)for the San Francisco area.
From October 2015 to December 2016,the index increased by 3.94 percent,which is reflected in Table 1.1
above.It is important to note that the standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents is adopted in the City’s General
Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
In addition to the residential fees,Municipal Resource Group’s 2016 study also provided recommended fees
for nonresidential development (all fees are stated per 1,000 square feet of building area),as shown in Table 1.2
below.Although the 2016 Municipal Resource Group study justified the adoption of a park fee for
nonresidential development,the City did not adopt such a fee at the time.Staff also recommends that the
Budget Standing Committee consider recommending an amendment to the park fee ordinance to include fees
attributable to nonresidential development.
Table 1.2: Nonresidential Park Fees Recommended in 2016 Study
Land Use Acquisition
Fee per 1,000
Square Feet
Park
Construction
Fee (Increased
by CCI)
Maximum
Park Fees
Allowed
Current
Park Fees
Recommend
Park Fees
Commercial/Retail $3,750 $1,275 $5,025 $0 $3,517
Hotel/Visitor $3,571 $1,214 $4,784 $0 $3,349
Office/R&D $3,333 $1,132 $4,465 $0 $3,123
Industrial $1,571 $530 $2,102 $0 $1,463
The construction cost per acre is the same as residential;the acreage required for nonresidential development is
based on 0.5 acre per 1,000 employees, which is a stated policy in the City’s General Plan.
By Ordinance 1520 (SSFMC Chapter 8.67),the City Council adopted the current fee calculation proceduresCity of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 5 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
By Ordinance 1520 (SSFMC Chapter 8.67),the City Council adopted the current fee calculation procedures
that apply to residential development not associated with the subdivision of land:
·Parkland Acquisition Fee =Units in Development × Average Residents per Unit × 0.003 (3 acres/1,000
people) × Average Fair Market Value per acre × 0.50
·Parks and Recreation Construction Fee =Units in Development × Average Residents per Unit × 0.003
(3 acres/1,000 people) × Average Construction Cost per acre × 0.50
The City of South San Francisco also adopted a Quimby Act park land dedication ordinance (SSFMC Sections
19.24.030-120).The Quimby Act ordinance applies only to subdivisions and provides for the dedication of 3
acres per 1,000 residents or the payment of an in-lieu fee.The construction cost of park land is not included in
the Quimby Act ordinance.
SSFMC Chapter 8.67 park fees are charged to building permits for all residential development not subject to
the Quimby Act in-lieu fees.The park acquisition component of the Chapter 8.67 is based on the average fair
market value of land in South San Francisco.The calculation is currently reduced by 50 percent.The park
construction component of the Chapter 8.67 fees are also reduced to 50 percent of the recommended amount
needed to provide parks at the adopted standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.
Table 1.4 Comparison of Impact Fees in Selected Bay Area Communities for Single Family Homes
City Population Parks Acquisition & Development for Single-
Family Homes*
San Mateo 102,659 $19,105
San Bruno 45,360 $27,000
San Carlos 29,008 $23,250
Menlo Park 33,863 $26,000
Half Moon Bay 12,528 $32,400
Redwood City 85,992 $17,100
Belmont 37,834 $27,089
East Palo Alto 30,545 $45,306
San Francisco 866,583 $30,000
Palo Alto 68,207 $60,206
Average Fee $30,746
South San Francisco
Current 65,000 $20,603
Proposed 74,600 $29,124City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 6 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
City Population Parks Acquisition & Development for Single-Family Homes*San Mateo 102,659 $19,105San Bruno 45,360 $27,000San Carlos 29,008 $23,250Menlo Park 33,863 $26,000Half Moon Bay 12,528 $32,400Redwood City 85,992 $17,100Belmont37,834 $27,089East Palo Alto 30,545 $45,306San Francisco 866,583 $30,000
Palo Alto 68,207 $60,206
Average Fee $30,746
South San Francisco
Current 65,000 $20,603
Proposed 74,600 $29,124
*Note -Fees shown are a combination of Park In-Lieu Fees (Quimby Act)and Park Land Acquisition and
Construction Fees.
Table 1.5 Comparison of Impact Fees in Selected Bay Area Communities for Multi-Family Residential
Units
City Population Parks Acquisition & Development for Multi-
Family Residential Units*
San Mateo 102,659 $14,875
San Bruno 45,360 $22,500
San Carlos 29,008 $18,296
Menlo Park 33,863 $16,000
Half Moon Bay 12,528 $28,774
Redwood City 85,992 $11,128
Belmont 37,834 $33,242
East Palo Alto 30,545 $45,306
San Francisco 866,583 $18,000
Palo Alto 68,207 $41,498
Average Fee $24,962
South San Francisco
Current 65,000 $10,630
Proposed 74,600 $15,026
Table 1.6 Comparison of Impact Fees in Selected Bay Area Communities for Commercial/Retail
City Population Parks Acquisition & Development for
Commercial/Retail (per 1,000 Gross Square Feet
San Mateo 102,659
San Bruno 45,360
San Carlos 29,008
Menlo Park 33,863
Half Moon Bay 12,528
Redwood City 85,992
Belmont 37,834 $360
East Palo Alto 30,545 $2,350
San Francisco 866,583 $4,340
Palo Alto $5,038
Average Fee $3,022
South San Francisco
Current 65,000 N/A
Proposed 74,600 $3,517
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 7 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
City Population Parks Acquisition & Development forCommercial/Retail (per 1,000 Gross Square Feet
San Mateo 102,659
San Bruno 45,360
San Carlos 29,008
Menlo Park 33,863
Half Moon Bay 12,528
Redwood City 85,992
Belmont 37,834 $360
East Palo Alto 30,545 $2,350
San Francisco 866,583 $4,340
Palo Alto $5,038
Average Fee $3,022
South San Francisco
Current 65,000 N/A
Proposed 74,600 $3,517
The fee comparison tables give a general idea of fees charged for similar facilities in nearby cities.Even
though each local agency in California,in order to adopt impact fees,must follow the same general principles
established by state law,fee comparisons,even among neighboring jurisdictions,tend to vary widely due
several factors:
·The methods used to calculate the impact fees and allocate the fees to types of development differ from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
·The types of facilities that are covered by impact fees vary.
·Cities adopt different standards, or levels of service, for facilities and may calculate those standards in
different ways.
·Cities may not have kept up with public improvements over the years and, as a consequence, have
created deficiencies between adopted or desired levels of service and the levels currently provided. This
factor may actually work to reduce the impact fee, since the costs to remedy the existing deficiencies
cannot be passed on to new development. In South San Francisco, for example, the current police
facilities are not adequate to meet the department’s needs to serve the existing population; the planned
facility expansion must be funded by both new development and the City. Furthermore, cities may
allow alternatives to impact fees to finance public facilities. Assessment districts and Mello-Roos
districts may be used for improvements that serve specific land development projects. District
assessments and special taxes levied to provide public improvements sometimes replace impact fees
that would otherwise be used for those improvements.
The park fees in cities examined in the comparison survey are calculated in much the same way as South San
Francisco,the only differences being the cost of land,the cost of park improvements,park standards,and
household occupancy assumptions.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 8 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
Staff recommends that the Budget Standing Committee consider recommending an amendment to the Park
Land Acquisition and Construction Fee with the following justifications:
1.Align with the park land goals and policies included in the City’s General Plan,Parks and Recreation
Master Plan and East of 101 Area Plan;
2.Align with the City’s strategic initiatives for financial stability and sustainability; and
3.Align with the priorities articulated by city residents in recent surveys,identifying parks and recreation
as a high priority.
The MRG study and supplemental MBI analyses support staff’s recommendation to amend the Park Land
Acquisition and Construction Fee as follows:
1.Broaden the type of developments that are subject to the fee to include all commercial developments;
2.Set the fee to a rate that is more closely aligned to acquisition and construction costs,as indicated in
Attachment 3.
Table 1.7 below compares the current rate and recommended rate for each land use type.
Table 1.7 Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee Comparison
Land Use Type Current Fee Maximum Fee
Allowed
Staff
Recommended
Residential
Single Family $20,603 $41,606 $29,124
Duplex to Four-plex $17,796 $35,938 $25,157
5 to 19 $15,109 $30,511 $21,358
20 to 49 $12,183 $24,602 $17,221
50+$10,630 $21,466 $15,026
Mobile Home $15,825 $31,958 $22,371
Non-Residential
Commercial /Retail $0 $5,025 $3,517
Hotel/Visitor $0 $4,784 $3,349
Office/R&D $0 $4,465 $3,126
Industrial $0 $2,102 $1,472
Sewer Capacity Fee
The Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis was prepared in 2009 by Bartle Wells Associates.Pursuant to Government
Code 66013,which governs local fees imposed for water and sewer connections or capacity charges,the City
Council adopted updated sewer capacity fees via Resolution 39-2010 in April 2010.
As illustrated in Table 3.1 of the MBI study Citywide Sewer Capacity Demand by Existing and New
Development,new development’s share of Sewer Capacity is 37.2 percent of the Total Equivalent Dwelling
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 9 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
Development,new development’s share of Sewer Capacity is 37.2 percent of the Total Equivalent Dwelling
Unit (EDU),where 1.0 EDU is representative of one single family home.This rate,known as the Fair-Share
Allocation Percentage, was used to calculate new development’s fair share of the growth costs.
There are two components to the Sewer Capacity Charge:the capital assets valuation charge and the capital
improvements charge.The capital assets charge accounts for the existing value of the sewer collection and
treatment system.It is calculated using the depreciated replacement cost of the system’s assets.The capital
assets charge (also called a “buy-in”fee)assigns a value to the benefit that new development receives from the
availability of sewer capacity (which existing development has maintained over the years through the sewer
rates).The total depreciated replacement value is $161.6 million of which 37.2 percent is new development’s
fair-share or $60.1 million.The second component is the charge for future improvements to the system
identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.The total cost of these future improvements is $84.6
million,the fair-share allocation to new development is 37.2 percent of that amount or $29.8 million.The total
fair-share is $90 million. These funds may be used for capital improvements to maintain capacity in the system.
Table 3.4 of the MBI study calculates the overall cost per EDU at $4785.88,which includes costs for flow,
biological oxygen demand (BOD)and total suspended solids (TSS).Table 3.5 calculates the Justified Sewer
Capacity Fee for both residential and commercial land uses.The Sewer Capacity Fee for Multi-Family
Residential Units is recommended to increase from $2,997.44 to $3,637.27.Table 1.8 below provides the
current and recommended sewer capacity fees for comparison purposes.
Table 1.8 Sewer Capacity Rate Comparison
Land Use Type Current Fee Study/Staff Recommendation
Residential, per unit
Single Family $3,944 $4,786
Multi-Family $2,997 $3,637
Mobile Home $2,327 $2,824
Non-Residential, per 1,000 sqft
Office $1,065 $1,292
Commercial/Retail $1,065 $1,292
Hotel/Visitor $1,578 $1,914
Industrial $1,065 $1,292
Public/Schools $1,065 $1,292
Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee
Staff recommends that the Budget Standing Committee consider adopting a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan impact fee program,which would impose an impact fee on new development for funding bicycle and
pedestrian improvements.
The City adopted a Bicycle Master Plan in February 2011 via Resolution 23-2011,guided by the General Plan
policies adopted in 1999.The Bicycle Master Plan recommends completion of the City’s existing bicycle paths,
lanes and routes.The list of improvements provided in the Bicycle Master Plan are listed in Table 4.1,and have
been increased from $10.56 million to $11.95 million to account for inflation.New development’s Fair Share
of the costs,are based on its proportional share of total Citywide average daily trips (ADT),which is calculated
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 10 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
of the costs,are based on its proportional share of total Citywide average daily trips (ADT),which is calculated
in Table 4.2 of the MBI study to be 13.1 percent, or $1.563 million.
Table 4.3 of the MBI study calculates new development’s fair share of the cost per ADT by taking the Fair
Share cost of $1.563 million and dividing by new development’s Average Daily Trips from Table 4.2 of
61,767. The result of $25.31 is the Cost per ADT for new development.
Table 4.4 of the MBI study utilizes the Cost per ADT to determine the Justified Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact
Fee for each residential and commercial land use type.Table 1.9 below lists the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact
Fee for each land use type.
Table 1.9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee by Land Use Type
Land Use Type Study/Staff Recommendation
Residential, per unit
Single Family $243
Multi-Family $170
Mobile Home $127
Non-Residential, per 1,000 sqft
Office $94
Commercial/Retail $364
Hotel/Visitor $239
Industrial $124
FUNDING
With Budget Standing Committee support and City Council adoption of the recommended User Fee rates,the
City could recognize an additional $5.2 million in annual revenue.Developer Impact Fees are dependent upon
development occurring the city,therefore it is challenging to project an annual or ongoing stream of revenue
generation.
CONCLUSION
The proposed changes to the City’s User Fees are in compliance with Proposition 218 and 26,promote the
City’s efforts for long-term financial sustainability, and align the City with best practices.
The proposed change to the City’s Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fee,change to the Sewer Capacity
Fee and addition of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee are in compliance with government codes that
allows local agencies to assess fees to ensure that new development pays for its fair share of impact costs.
Attachments
1.User Fee Study
2.Parks and Recreation Fees - Market Comparison
3.NBS User Fee Study PowerPoint Presentation
4.Park Land Acquisition and Construction Fees Report
5.Development Impact Mitigation Fee Analysis Draft Report
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 11 of 12
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-504 Agenda Date:5/25/2017
Version:1 Item #:2.
6.Developer Impact Fee PowerPoint Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/31/2017Page 12 of 12
powered by Legistar™
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 City Clerk COS, Page 1 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.1
Agendas, Transcripts, Administrative Codes
CC1 Agendas: City Council Annually [7]4.00 107$ 428$ $ 40 9%40$ 9%2 80$ 856$ 80$
CC2 Successor Agency Annually 2.00 107$ 214$ $ 35 16%35$ 16%2 70$ 428$ 70$
CC3 Oversight Board or any other legislative body Annually 2.00 107$ 214$ $ 35 16%35$ 16%- -$ -$ -$
CC4 Transcripts
Folio Rate [8] Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100%5 -$ -$ -$
Additional Copies Per Page [8] $ 0.25 0.10$ 5 1.25$ -$ 0.50$
Subpoena Processing Fees
CC5
Complying with each subpoena and delivering
records to attorney, attorney's representative, or
deposition officer
Per
Hr/Per
Person
[2]1.00 107$ 107$ $ 15 14%15$ 14%200 3,000$ 21,393$ 3,000$
CC6 Clerical costs incurred in locating and making
records available
Per
Hr/Per
Person
[5]1.00 107$ 107$ $ 24 22%24$ 22%200 4,800$ 21,393$ 4,800$
CC7 Standard reproduction of documents 8 1/2 x 14
inches or less Per Page [6,8] $ 0.10 0.10$ - -$ -$ -$
CC8 Standard reproduction of larger size documents Per Page [8] $ 0.20 0.20$ - -$ -$ -$
CC9
Daily cost for a non-public safety employee
required to remain in attendance pursuant to a
subpoena
Per Day [9]8.00 107$ 856$ $ 150 18%150$ 18%50 7,500$ 42,785$ 7,500$
CC10 Daily cost for a public safety employee required
to remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoena Per Day
Police - Sworn Per Day [9]8.00 171$ 1,367$
Fire Per Day [9]8.00 121$ 966$
2,333$ $ 275 12%275$ 12%50 13,750$ 116,631$ 13,750$
CC11 Daily cost for a custodian of records to appear to
describe records Per Day [9]8.00 107$ 856$ $ 150 18%150$ 18%10 1,500$ 8,557$ 1,500$
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 City Clerk COS, Page 2 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.1
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
CC12 Daily cost for public safety custodian of records
to appear to describe records Per Day
Police - Sworn Per Day [9]8.00 171$ 1,367$
Fire Per Day [9]8.00 121$ 966$
2,333$ $ 275 12%275$ 12%25 6,875$ 58,315$ 6,875$
Other Fees
CC13 Campaign Disclosure Statements (FPPC)Per Page [8] $ 0.10 0.10$ - -$ -$ -$
CC14 Candidate Statements Deposit [3]2.00 107$ 214$ $ 600 280%1,000$ 467%10 6,000$ 2,139$ 10,000$
CC15
Candidates Election Manual
(for non-candidates, persons who fail to file
nomination papers, or withdraw candidacy)
Flat [8] $ 50 -$ - -$ -$ -$
CC16 Duplication of Videotapes onto DVDs/CDs Flat 0.50 107$ 53$ $ 10 19%53$ 100%5 50$ 267$ 267$
CC17 Preparing Proof of Residence Letters or
Notarizing Proof of Living Documents Flat 0.08 107$ 9$ $ 10 112%9$ 100%20 200$ 178$ 178$
CC18 Postage Flat Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
CC19 Duplication of Council meeting audio file to CD Per CD 0.17 107$ 18$ $ 7.50 41%18$ 100%10 75$ 182$ 182$
CC20 Copy of CD/DVD
External file Per CD 0.12 107$ 13$ $ 7.50 58%13$ 100%5 38$ 64$ 64$
Non-existing file Per CD 0.17 107$ 18$ $ 7.50 41%18$ 100%1 8$ 18$ 18$
City Clerk Meeting Per CD 0.25 107$ 27$ $ 7.50 28%27$ 100%5 38$ 134$ 134$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 City Clerk COS, Page 3 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.1
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
City-Wide Reproduction of Printed Matter
CC21 Blueprinting:
Blue Line copies Per s.f.[8] $ 0.30 Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Sepia Line copies ($4 minimum)Per s.f.[8] $ 0.60 Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
CC22 Photocopying of all items not otherwise listed in
this Master Fee Schedule Per Page [4,6,8] $ 0.25 0.10$ 500 125$ -$ 50$
CC24 Published materials for which there is a stated
cost.Flat [8] Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
CC25 Hourly Rate:
City Clerk 1.00 107$ 107$ $ - 0%107$ 100%-$ -$ -$
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
TOTAL 44,109 273,341 48,469
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 City Clerk COS, Page 4 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.1
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
[Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
This fee does not include charges for time spent by City staff gathering City records under the Public Records Act. Rather, it charges for time spent compiling and gathering data and putting it into another format requested by a member of the public,
which is not covered under the Public Records Act. Note that requests for analysis or compilation of City data are discretionary requests, and are dependent on staff availability and time constraints.
Per Public Records Act ($ .10 per page). Ten cents ($0.10) per page for standard reproduction of documents of a size 8 1/2 by 14 inches or less; twenty cents ($0.20) per page for copying of documents from microfilm
Agendas that are emailed have no charge.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost analysis
Maximum daily cost.
Under the Public Records Act, the City may charge users for photocopying or duplicating records. If a Citizen claims that they are economically disadvantaged or indigent, staff may waive the fee for photo0copying the first ten pages. Not more than
ten pages per day per citizen may be waived under these circumstances. (Up to $2.50 per day per person)
Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17 Master Fee Schedule"
The only fee for complying with the subpoena shall not exceed fifteen dollars ($15), plus the actual cost, if any, charged to the witness by a third person for retrieval and return of records held offsite by that third person. If the records are retrieved
from microfilm, the reasonable cost, as defined in paragraph (1), shall also apply.
The amount of two hundred seventy-five dollars ($275), together with the subpoena, shall be tendered to the person accepting the subpoena for each day that the peace officer, firefighter, state employee, trial court employee, or specified county
employee is required to remain in attendance pursuant to the subpoena.
(c) If the actual expenses should later prove to be less than the amount tendered, the excess of the amount tendered shall be refunded.
(d) If the actual expenses should later prove to be more than the amount deposited, the difference shall be paid to the public entity by the party at whose request the subpoena is issued.
Proportionate share of actual cost imposed by San Mateo County Clerk / Elections Office. [December 19, 1979, R:143-1979]
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 City Manager COS, Page 5 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Manager - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.2
CM1 Film Permit Per Permit 3.00 181$ 542$ 400$ 74%542$ 100%2 800$ 1,084$ 1,084$
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
TOTAL 800 1,084 1,084
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17
Master Fee Schedule"
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Finance COS, Page 6 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Finance - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.3
F1 Business License Listing:
Master List Per List 0.08 114$ 9$ 50$ 550%9$ 100%6 300$ 55$ 55$
Monthly Update Per
Update 0.08 114$ 9$ 20$ 220%9$ 100%12 240$ 109$ 109$
F2 Overdue Invoices ($10 minimum)Monthly [2,4]1% of Bill 1% of Bill - -$ -$ -$
F4 Returned Checks Due to Insufficient Funds Per Check [3]1.50 114$ 170$ 18$ 11%25$ 15%22 396$ 3,749$ 550$
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
TOTAL 936 3,913 714
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17
Master Fee Schedule"
[2]One percent monthly beginning 60 days after the
date on which the bill was due.
[3]
Per CA Civil Code; 1st NSF Check is limited to $25
fee; each subsequent NSF check is limited to $35
fee
[4]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not
included in cost analysis
Fees for the Annual Budget, Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, and Other Materials
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Plan COS, Page 7 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.4
Planning Division
Public Hearing Cases
PL1 Planned Unit Development Deposit [7]
Planning 49.00 163$ 7,992$
PW-Eng 8.00 144$ 1,150$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
9,308$ 2,000$ 21%9,308$ 100%1 2,000$ 9,308$ 9,308$
PL2 Precise Plan Deposit [7]
Planning 49.00 163$ 7,992$
PW-Eng 8.00 144$ 1,150$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
9,308$ 1,250$ 13%9,308$ 100%3 3,750$ 27,924$ 27,924$
PL3 Precise Plan Modification (Residential Only)Deposit [7]
Planning 30.00 163$ 4,893$
PW-Eng 8.00 144$ 1,150$
6,043$ 400$ 7%6,043$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL4 Conditional Use Permit:
Residential or Civic Use Per
Application [7]
Planning 15.00 163$ 2,446$
PW-Eng 4.00 144$ 575$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
Police 0.50 171$ 85$
3,273$ 650$ 20%3,273$ 100%24 15,600$ 78,553$ 78,553$
All Others Per
Application [7]
Planning 25.00 163$ 4,077$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
4,244$ 1,000$ 24%4,244$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL5 Conditional Use Permit Modification Flat [2,7]
Planning 10.00 163$ 1,631$
PW-Eng 4.00 144$ 575$
2,206$ 400$ 18%2,206$ 100%10 4,000$ 22,060$ 22,060$
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Plan COS, Page 8 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.4
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PL6 Temporary Use Permit Per Permit [7]
Planning 5.00 163$ 815$
PW-Eng 4.00 144$ 575$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
1,557$ 200$ 13%1,557$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL7 Minor Use Permit
Residential Per Permit [7]
Planning 10.00 163$ 1,631$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
1,797$ 350$ 19%1,797$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
All Others Per Permit 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 600$ 37%1,631$ 100%11 6,600$ 17,941$ 17,941$
PL8 Zoning Amendment (Text)Deposit 50.00 163$ 8,155$ 2,000$ 25%8,155$ 100%15 30,000$ 122,323$ 122,323$
PL9 Rezoning Map Deposit 50.00 163$ 8,155$ 2,000$ 25%8,155$ 100%1 2,000$ 8,155$ 8,155$
PL10 Site Clearance/Zoning Verification Per
Verification 1.00 163$ 163$ 100$ 61%163$ 100%36 3,600$ 5,871$ 5,871$
PL11 Specific Plan Deposit [7]
Planning 100.00 163$ 16,310$
PW-Eng 24.00 144$ 3,450$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
19,926$ 2,000$ 10%19,926$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL12 Variance For each
variance 25.00 163$ 4,077$ 650$ 16%4,077$ 100%1 650$ 4,077$ 4,077$
PL13 General Plan Amendments Deposit [7]
Planning 50.00 163$ 8,155$
PW-Eng 8.00 144$ 1,150$
9,305$ 2,000$ 21%9,305$ 100%6 12,000$ 55,830$ 55,830$
PL14 Master Plan Deposit [7]
Planning 100.00 163$ 16,310$
PW-Eng 24.00 144$ 3,450$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Plan COS, Page 9 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.4
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
19,760$ 2,000$ 10%19,760$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL15 Development Agreement Deposit [7]
Planning 70.00 163$ 11,417$
PW-Eng 40.00 144$ 5,751$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
Police 0.50 171$ 85$
17,419$ 2,000$ 11%17,419$ 100%4 8,000$ 69,676$ 69,676$
PL16 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to
the City Council by:
Applicant Flat 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 400$ 25%1,631$ 100%4 1,600$ 6,524$ 6,524$
Adjacent Property Owner Flat 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 400$ 25%1,631$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
City Resident Flat 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 400$ 25%1,631$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Homeowners Association Flat 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 400$ 25%1,631$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
All Others Flat 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 400$ 25%1,631$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL17 Appeal of the Chief Planner's decision to the
Planning Commission by any party Per Appeal 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 200$ 12%815$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
PL18 Time Extension-Non-Conforming Use Per
Extension 5.00 163$ 815$ 50$ 6%815$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL19
Time Extension for a Use Permit, Planned Unit
Development Permit, Non-Conforming Status
Permit, and for all Other Permits and Maps
Per
Extension 5.00 163$ 815$ 200$ 25%815$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL20 Transportation Demand Management Plan:
Initial Filing Fee Deposit 7.00 163$ 1,142$ 200$ 18%1,142$ 100%7 1,400$ 7,992$ 7,992$
Annual Monitoring (plus survey cost)Deposit 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 150$ 9%1,631$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Tri-annual Deposit [3]10.00 163$ 1,631$ 500$ 31%1,631$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL21 Modifications & Waivers
Minor (Staff Review)Flat 1.50 163$ 245$ 100$ 41%245$ 100%3 300$ 734$ 734$
Major (Planning Commission Review)Deposit 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 100$ 6%1,631$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Plan COS, Page 10 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.4
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PL22 Design Review - Signs:
Type A (up to 25 sq.ft.)Per
Application 1.00 163$ 163$ 150$ 92%163$ 100%54 8,100$ 8,807$ 8,807$
Type B (up to 100 sq.ft.)Per
Application 5.00 163$ 815$ 300$ 37%815$ 100%23 6,900$ 18,756$ 18,756$
Type C / Master Sign Per
Application 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 800$ 49%1,631$ 100%7 5,600$ 11,417$ 11,417$
PL23 Design Review - Single Family Residential/New or
Additions to 2 or 3 Units
Per
Application [7]
Planning 10.00 163$ 1,631$
PW-Eng 4.00 144$ 575$
Police 0.50 171$ 85$
2,291$ 300$ 13%2,291$ 100%48 14,400$ 109,990$ 109,990$
PL24
Design Review - Multi-Family Residential /
Subdivisions 4 or More Units/ Modifications /
Additions to 4 or More Units
Per
Application [7]
Planning 20.00 n/a -$
PW-Eng 4.00 144$ 575$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
Police 0.50 171$ 85$
827$ 600$ 73%827$ 100%10 6,000$ 8,266$ 8,266$
PL25 Design Review - Commercial and Industrial Per
Application [7]
Planning 10.00 163$ 1,631$
PW-Eng 4.00 144$ 575$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
Police 0.50 171$ 85$
2,458$ 700$ 28%2,458$ 100%67 46,900$ 164,656$ 164,656$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Plan COS, Page 11 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.4
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PL26 Design Review - Projects Requiring Planning
Commission Approval Deposit [7]
Planning 20.00 n/a -$
PW-Eng 8.00 144$ 1,150$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
Police 0.50 171$ 85$
1,402$ 1,000$ 71%1,402$ 100%2 2,000$ 2,803$ 2,803$
PL27 Design Review - Resubmitted (after 2 reviews by
Design Review Board)Flat [7]
Planning 10.00 163$ 1,631$
PW-Eng 4.00 144$ 575$
Fire 1.00 166$ 166$
2,372$ Original Filing
Fee %2,372$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL28 Environmental Document Fees - Categorical
Exemption Flat 1.00 163$ 163$ 20$ 12%163$ 100%100 2,000$ 16,310$ 16,310$
PL29
Environmental Document Fees - Initial Study,
Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative
Declaration and other Contract Planning Studies
Deposit [3]30.00 163$ 4,893$ 500$ 10%4,893$ 100%8 4,000$ 39,143$ 39,143$
PL30 Environmental Document Fees - Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)Deposit [4]60.00 163$ 9,786$ 1,000$ 10%9,786$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL31 Subdivisions - Tentative Subdivision Map Flat 5.00 163$ 815$ 800$ 98%815$ 100%1 800$ 815$ 815$
Per Lot Per Unit 0.00 163$ -$ 25$ %-$ %- -$ -$ -$
PL32 Subdivisions - Tentative Parcel Map Flat 1.00 163$ 163$ 800$ 491%163$ 100%1 800$ 163$ 163$
Per Lot Per Unit 0.00 163$ -$ 25$ %-$ %- -$ -$ -$
PL33 Documents, Maps and Plans - Reproduction of
Documents and Maps Per Page 0.00 163$ -$ 0.25$ %
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Plan COS, Page 12 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.4
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Miscellaneous Fees
PL34 Minor Changes to Approved Permit Flat 1.00 163$ 163$ -$ 0%163$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL35 Permit Program Maintenance Fee Per Building
Permit [5]25$ %25$ %- -$ -$ -$
PL36 Inspection Fees: Additional visits
Per
Inspection
Per
Application
2.00 163$ 326$ 50$ 15%326$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL37 Certificate of Alteration Each 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 250$ 15%1,631$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL38 General Plan Maintenance Fee [5] 0.15% of
valuation % 0.15% of
valuation %- -$ -$ -$
PL39 Cultural Arts Contribution/Unit Landscaping Cost Per sq. ft.[5]8$ -$ - -$ -$ -$
PL40 City Attorney Cost Recovery Fee Deposit [5]2,000$ %-$ - -$ -$ -$
PL41 Economic & Community Development Parking
Exemption Each 10.00 163$ 1,631$ 650$ 40%1,631$ 100%6 3,900$ 9,786$ 9,786$
PL42 Economic & Community Development Parking
District Annexation Fee Deposit 50.00 163$ 8,155$ 1,000$ 12%8,155$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL43 Legal Notices, other than Zoning or General Plan
Amendments Deposit 3.00 163$ 489$ 300$ 61%489$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL44 Legal Notices for Zoning and General Plan
Amendments Deposit 3.00 163$ 489$ 800$ 164%489$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL45 Duplication of Planning Commission Meeting Per Copy 0.00 163$ -$ 20$ %
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
%- -$ -$ -$
PL46 Zoning Verification Letter Flat 5.00 163$ 815$ 100$ 12%815$ 100%14 1,400$ 11,417$ 11,417$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Plan COS, Page 13 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.4
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PL47 Zoning Administrator Decision Flat 5.00 163$ 815$ 100$ 12%815$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL48 Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (taxi)Flat 1.00 163$ 163$ 1,000$ 613%163$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PL49 Sidewalk Dining Permit (Annual)Flat 3.00 163$ 489$ 200$ 41%489$ 100%1 200$ 489$ 489$
PL50 Hourly Rate - Planning Flat 1.00 163$ 163$ -$ 0%163$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Support to PW/Engineering
PW 2 Encroachment Permit Inspection Fee (covers two
inpections) Flat 1.00 163$ 163$
PW7 Major Subdivision Tentative Map Flat 1.00 163$ 163$
PW9 Minor Subdivision Tentative Map Flat 1.00 163$ 163$
PW11 Lot Line Adjustment Per
Adjustment 1.00 163$ 163$
PW15 Subdivision and Parcel Map Plan Check (includes
Coordination and administartion costs) Deposit 1.00 163$ 163$
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
TOTAL [6]#REF!839,787 839,787
[Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Total "Annual Estimated Revenue at Current Fee" represents the total amounts collected, as many fees are structured on a deposit basis
[7]Includes support costs from other departments (PW-Eng, Fire and Police)
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost analysis
Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17 Master Fee Schedule"
The greater of 1/2 the Conditional Use Permit fee or $400 for each modification
Consultant costs, plus 15% or $500, whichever is greater.
Consultant costs, plus 15% or $1,000, whichever is greater.
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 14 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Building Inspection Division
Inspections and Re-inspections
BL1 Inspections or Re-inspections Outside Normal
Business Hours Per Hour 1.00 106$ 106$ 168$ 159%106$ 100%48 8,090$ 5,094$ 5,094$
BL2 Re-inspections During Normal Business Hours Per Hour 1.00 106$ 106$ 112$ 106%106$ 100%18 2,002$ 1,891$ 1,891$
BL3 Building Inspection
$0 - $500 base fee @
$500 0.75 106$ 79$ 30.00$ 38%79$ 100%52 1,560$ 4,126$ 4,126$
$ 501 base fee @
$500 0.75 106$ 79$ 30.00$ 38%79$ 100%219 6,570$ 17,375$ 17,375$
each additional $100 or fraction thereof each add'l
$100 0.017 106$ 2$ 3.25$ 184% $ 1.8 100%1,874 6,090$ 3,310$ 3,304$
$ 2,001 base fee @
$2,000 1.00 106$ 106$ 78.75$ 74%106$ 100%1,606 126,473$ 169,894$ 169,894$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.217 106$ 23$ 15.50$ 67% $ 23.0 100%13,349 206,912$ 307,005$ 306,992$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 6.00 106$ 635$ 435.25$ 69%635$ 100%230 100,108$ 145,986$ 145,986$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.240 106$ 25$ 11.25$ 44% $ 25.4 100%231 2,602$ 5,873$ 5,873$
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Building, Plumbing, Electrical, and Mechanical
for Residential and Commercial
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 15 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 12.00 106$ 1,269$ 716.50$ 56%1,269$ 100%187 133,986$ 237,386$ 237,386$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.120 106$ 13$ 7.50$ 59% $ 12.7 100%5,032 37,741$ 63,879$ 63,879$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 18.00 106$ 1,904$ 1,091.50$ 57%1,904$ 100%276 301,254$ 525,549$ 525,549$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.075 106$ 8$ 6.25$ 79% $ 7.9 100%33,454 209,086$ 265,422$ 265,422$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 48.00 106$ 5,078$ 3,591.50$ 71%5,078$ 100%46 165,209$ 233,577$ 233,577$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.144 106$ 15$ 5.25$ 34% $ 15.2 100%9,544 50,108$ 145,393$ 145,393$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 120.00 106$ 12,694$ 6,216.50$ 49%12,694$ 100%51 317,042$ 647,415$ 647,415$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.015 106$ 2$ 3.25$ 205% $ 1.6 100%13,500 43,876$ 21,422$ 21,422$
$ 3,000,001 base fee @
$3,000,000 150.00 106$ 15,868$ 6,216.50$ 39%15,868$ 100%23 142,980$ 364,965$ 364,965$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.015 106$ 2$ 3.25$ 205% $ 1.6 100%9,117 29,630$ 14,467$ 14,467$
$ 5,000,001 base fee @
$5,000,000 180.00 106$ 19,042$ 6,216.50$ 33%19,042$ 100%16 99,464$ 304,666$ 304,666$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.008 106$ 1$ 3.25$ 384% $ 0.8 100%42,368 137,695$ 35,856$ 35,856$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 16 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
$ 10,000,001
base fee @
$10,000,00
0
220.00 106$ 23,273$ 6,216.50$ 27%23,273$ 100%17 105,681$ 395,643$ 395,643$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 17 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.008 106$ 1$ 3.25$ 384% $ 0.8 100%45,635 148,314$ 38,621$ 38,621$
$ 25,000,001
base fee @
$25,000,00
0
340.00 106$ 35,968$ 6,216.50$ 17%35,968$ 100%6 37,299$ 215,805$ 215,805$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.004 106$ 0$ 3.25$ 768% $ 0.4 100%37,601 122,202$ 15,911$ 15,909$
$ 50,000,001
base fee @
$50,000,00
0
440.00 106$ 46,546$ 6,216.50$ 13%46,546$ 100%2 12,433$ 93,092$ 93,092$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.009 106$ 1$ 3.25$ 349% $ 0.9 100%84,577 274,874$ 78,734$ 78,734$
BL4 Building Plan Checking (3 Plan Reviews) - Existing
Residential
$0 - $500 base fee @
$500 0.50 106$ 53$ 19.50$ 37%26$ 50%1 20$ 53$ 26$
$ 501 base fee @
$500 0.50 106$ 53$ 19.50$ 37%26$ 50%6 117$ 317$ 159$
each additional $100 or fraction thereof each add'l
$100 0.017 106$ 2$ 2.11$ 120%1.8$ 100%65 137$ 115$ 115$
$ 2,001 base fee @
$2,000 0.75 106$ 79$ 51.19$ 65%51$ 65%89 4,556$ 7,061$ 4,556$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.076 106$ 8$ 10.08$ 125% $ 8.0 100%951 9,583$ 7,657$ 7,656$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 2.50 106$ 264$ 282.91$ 107%264$ 100%71 20,087$ 18,777$ 18,777$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.100 106$ 11$ 7.31$ 69% $ 10.6 100%995 7,277$ 10,528$ 10,528$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 5.00 106$ 529$ 465.73$ 88%466$ 88%62 28,875$ 32,794$ 28,875$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.100 106$ 11$ 4.88$ 46% $ 10.6 100%1,569 7,650$ 16,601$ 16,601$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 18 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 10.00 106$ 1,058$ 709.48$ 67%1,058$ 100%37 26,251$ 39,141$ 39,141$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.050 106$ 5$ 4.06$ 77% $ 5.3 100%2,753 11,185$ 14,563$ 14,563$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 30.00 106$ 3,174$ 2,334.48$ 74%3,174$ 100%1 2,334$ 3,174$ 3,174$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.040 106$ 4$ 3.41$ 81% $ 4.2 100%109 370$ 459$ 459$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 50.00 106$ 5,289$ 4,040.73$ 76%5,289$ 100%1 4,041$ 5,289$ 5,289$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.050 106$ 5$ 2.11$ 40% $ 5.3 100%22,000 46,475$ 116,365$ 116,365$
BL5 Building Plan Checking (3 Plan Reviews) - New
Residential & Commercial
$0 - $500 base fee @
$500 0.50 106$ 53$ 29.25$ 55%29$ 55%4 117$ 212$ 117$
$ 501 base fee @
$500 0.50 106$ 53$ 29.25$ 55%29$ 55%4 117$ 212$ 117$
each additional $100 or fraction thereof each add'l
$100 0.017 106$ 2$ 2.50$ 142%1.8$ 100%45 113$ 79$ 79$
$ 2,001 base fee @
$2,000 0.75 106$ 79$ 66.79$ 84%67$ 84%101 6,746$ 8,013$ 6,746$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.120 106$ 13$ 11.38$ 90% $ 12.6 100%1,164 13,243$ 14,730$ 14,726$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 3.50 106$ 370$ 328.41$ 89%328$ 89%53 17,406$ 19,623$ 17,406$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.140 106$ 15$ 8.13$ 55% $ 14.8 100%698 5,673$ 10,341$ 10,341$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 7.00 106$ 741$ 531.54$ 72%532$ 72%57 30,298$ 42,209$ 30,298$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.140 106$ 15$ 5.69$ 38% $ 14.8 100%1,391 7,913$ 20,604$ 20,604$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 14.00 106$ 1,481$ 815.91$ 55%1,481$ 100%123 100,357$ 182,165$ 182,165$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.035 106$ 4$ 4.55$ 123% $ 3.7 100%15,107 68,736$ 55,934$ 55,933$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 19 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 28.00 106$ 2,962$ 2,635.91$ 89%2,962$ 100%24 63,262$ 71,089$ 71,089$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.064 106$ 7$ 3.90$ 58% $ 6.8 100%5,545 21,627$ 37,543$ 37,544$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 60.00 106$ 6,347$ 4,585.75$ 72%6,347$ 100%21 96,301$ 133,291$ 133,291$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.020 106$ 2$ 2.60$ 123% $ 2.1 100%9,997 25,993$ 21,151$ 21,151$
$ 3,000,001 base fee @
$3,000,000 100.00 106$ 10,579$ 4,585.75$ 43%10,579$ 100%17 77,958$ 179,838$ 179,838$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.030 106$ 3$ 2.60$ 82% $ 3.2 100%2,552 6,635$ 8,099$ 8,099$
$ 5,000,001 base fee @
$5,000,000 160.00 106$ 16,926$ 4,585.75$ 27%16,926$ 100%15 68,786$ 253,888$ 253,888$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.012 106$ 1$ 2.60$ 205% $ 1.3 100%21,114 54,896$ 26,803$ 26,802$
$ 10,000,001
base fee @
$10,000,00
0
220.00 106$ 23,273$ 4,585.75$ 20%23,273$ 100%10 45,858$ 232,731$ 232,731$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.005 106$ 1$ 2.60$ 464% $ 0.6 101%10,167 26,434$ 5,700$ 5,736$
$ 25,000,001
base fee @
$25,000,00
0
300.00 106$ 31,736$ 4,585.75$ 14%31,736$ 100%5 22,929$ 158,680$ 158,680$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.002 106$ 0$ 2.60$ 1536% $ 0.2 100%27,927 72,610$ 4,727$ 4,728$
$ 50,000,001
base fee @
$50,000,00
0
340.00 106$ 35,968$ 4,585.75$ 13%35,968$ 100%3 13,757$ 107,903$ 107,903$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.01 106$ 1$ 2.60$ 361% $ 0.7 100%34,577 89,899$ 24,873$ 24,873$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 20 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
BL6
new
Permit Processing - Initial Project Input, Fee
Collection (Includes Exisiting/New Residential &
Commercial Fees)
2.00 106$ 212$ 30.00$ 14%212$ 100%2,731 81,930$ 577,808$ 577,808$
BL6.1
new
Permit Processing - Initial Project Input, Fee
Collection (Includes Mechanical, Plumbing and
Electrical Fees)
0.33 106$ 35$ $30-$152.50 230%35$ 100%4,597 368,719$ 160,480$ 160,480$
BL7 Plan Checking - Mechanical and Plumbing
(Includes 3 Plan Reviews)
$0 - $500 base fee @
$500 0.50 106$ 53$ 7.50$ 14%26$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
$ 500 base fee @
$500 0.50 106$ 53$ 7.50$ 14%26$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $100 or fraction thereof each add'l
$100 0.10 106$ 11$ 1.25$ 12%11$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 1,000 base fee @
$1,000 1.00 106$ 106$ 13.75$ 13%53$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $500 or fraction thereof each add'l
$500 0.06 106$ 7$ 1.13$ 17% $ 7 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 3,000 base fee @
$3,000 1.25 106$ 132$ 18.25$ 14%66$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $500 or fraction thereof each add'l
$500 0.19 106$ 20$ 1.00$ 5% $ 20 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 5,000 base fee @
$5,000 2.00 106$ 212$ 22.25$ 11%106$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $500 or fraction thereof each add'l
$500 0.10 106$ 11$ 0.75$ 7% $ 11 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 10,000 base fee @
$10,000 3.00 106$ 317$ 28.25$ 9%159$ 50%1,249 35,284$ 396,383$ 198,192$
each additional $500 or fraction thereof each add'l
$500 0.15 106$ 16$ 0.50$ 3% $ 16 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 21 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
BL8 Plan Checking - Electrical (Includes 3 Plan
Reviews)
$ 500 base fee @
$500 0.50 106$ 53$ 7.50$ 14%26$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $100 or fraction thereof each add'l
$100 0.10 106$ 11$ 1.63$ 15%11$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 1,000 base fee @
$1,000 1.00 106$ 106$ 15.63$ 15%53$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $500 or fraction thereof each add'l
$500 0.06 106$ 7$ 1.38$ 21% $ 7 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 3,000 base fee @
$3,000 1.25 106$ 132$ 26.63$ 20%66$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $500 or fraction thereof each add'l
$500 0.19 106$ 20$ 1.00$ 5% $ 20 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 5,000 base fee @
$5,000 2.00 106$ 212$ 30.63$ 14%106$ 50%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $500 or fraction thereof each add'l
$500 0.10 106$ 11$ 0.75$ 7% $ 11 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 10,000 base fee @
$10,000 3.00 106$ 317$ 38.13$ 12%159$ 50%1,280 48,800$ 406,221$ 203,111$
each additional $500 or fraction thereof each add'l
$500 0.15 106$ 16$ 0.50$ 3% $ 16 100%- -$ -$ -$
BL9 Additional Plan Review Required by Changes,
additions or revisions to approved plans
Per Half-
Hour 0.50 106$ 53$ 56.00$ 106%53$ 100%76 4,257$ 4,020$ 4,020$
BL10 State Mandated Training Fee Cost Per Permit 8$ 8$ - -$ -$ -$
Miscellaneous Fees
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 22 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
BL11 Digital Plan Retention
deleted
micro
filming -
same as
DPR
5% of building
permit fee
$0.03 per
standard page.
$0.95 per
oversized page.
$0.04 per
microfiche scan.
76,355$ 76,355$ 76,355$
BL12 Record Copying Per page 0.25$
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
- -$ -$ -$
BL13 California Access Specialist Professional (CASp) Actual Cost +
5% admin fee 100% Actual Cost +
CW overhead 100%- -$ -$ -$
BL14 Construction and Demolition (Projects > $5,000
demolition and new construction > $50,000) Deposit [3]200$ $50/ton; $200
minimum - -$ -$ -$
BL15 Waste Management Plan Deposit Deposit [2] $ 100 $50/ton; $100
minimum - -$ -$ -$
BL16 Commercial Photovoltaic Flat [4]3.50 106$ 370$ $ 300.00 81%370$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
BL17 Residential Photovoltaic Flat [4]2.00 106$ 212$ $ 225.00 106%212$ 100%241 54,225$ 50,989$ 50,989$
BL18 Hourly Rate - Building Flat 1.00 106$ 106$ $ - 0%106$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-BL COS, Page 23 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development - Building - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.5
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
TOTAL 4,605,467 7,923,947 7,923,955
[Notes]
[1]
[2]Deposit required @ $50/ton. $100 minimum per
[3]
[4]CA Govt. Code SS 66015 limits Res. $500 maximum; Comm. $1,000 Maximum
Deposit required @ $50/ton. $200 minimum per plan, $50,000 maximum deposit required for new construction and demolition, refunded upon completion of plan; deposit gains no interest.
Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17 Master Fee Schedule"
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police COS, Page 24 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.6
Alarms, Animal Control, Fingerprinting
P1 Fingerprints
All individuals (City Employees excluded)Per Person [2]0.33 171$ 56$ $ 20 35%55$ 98%- -$ -$ -$
Live Scan Fingerprinting 0.42 171$ 71$ $ 40 56%70$ 99%- -$ -$ -$
Permits
P2 Alarm Registration (Commercial)
New/ Renewal Flat 0.17 171$ 28$ $ 25 88%25$ 88%407 10,164$ 11,575$ 10,164$
P3 False Alarm Fines [3]
2nd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per alarm 171$ -$ $ 50 100$ - -$ -$ -$
3rd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per alarm 171$ -$ $ 100 200$ - -$ -$ -$
4th and other additional alarms within 12
months of the 1st preventable alarm Per alarm 171$ -$ $ 250 500$ - -$ -$ -$
False Alarm Response (average)Flat [9]0.66 171$ 113$
P4 False Alarm Fine Appeal Per appeal 0.33 171$ 56$ $ 25 44%55$ 98%- -$ -$ -$
P5 Bingo Per Permit [8]0.33 171$ 56$ $ 100 177%55$ 98%- -$ -$ -$
Initial Permit (Refundable if denied)Flat 0.33 171$ 56$ $ 50 89%55$ 98%- -$ -$ -$
Annual Renewal Per Renewal 3.00 171$ 512$ $ 100 20%510$ 100%3 300$ 1,537$ 1,530$
P6 Card room I.D. Card:
Initial Operator Permit Flat 10.00 171$ 1,708$ $ 750 44%1,705$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Initial Employee Permit Flat 2.00 171$ 342$ $ 125 37%340$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Annual Renewal (for operator & employee
permit)Flat 0.50 171$ 85$ $ 10 12%85$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Replacement Flat 0.50 171$ 85$ $ 25 29%85$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P7 Cab Company Per individual 0.33 171$ 56$ $ 100 177%55$ 98%- -$ -$ -$
Driver Renewal Permit Flat 0.33 171$ 56$ $ 65 115%55$ 98%39 2,535$ 2,199$ 2,145$
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police COS, Page 25 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.6
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
P8 Vehicles for Hire:
Initial Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity Per individual 40.00 171$ 6,833$ $ 100 1%6,830$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Certificate of Renewal Per Driver 1.00 171$ 171$ $ 65 38%170$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P9 Special Event Permit Flat 0.50 171$ 85$ $ 250 293%85$ 100%10 2,500$ 854$ 854$
Non-Profit Group / Charity Event Flat 0.50 171$ 85$ $ 175 205%85$ 100%5 875$ 427$ 427$
P10 Junk Collector Per individual 0.50 171$ 85$ $ 27 31%85$ 100%1 27$ 85$ 85$
P11 Massage Establishment or Bath House:
Initial Permit Per individual 10.00 171$ 1,708$ $ 750 44%1,705$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Annual Renewal Per individual 1.00 171$ 171$ $ 125 73%170$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P13 Pawnbroker/Secondhand Goods Background
Investigation:
Dealer Per Permit 10.00 171$ 1,708$ $ 750 44%1,705$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Employee Per Permit 2.00 171$ 342$ $ 150 44%340$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P14 Fortune Telling Per Permit 10.00 171$ 1,708$ $ 750 44%1,705$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P15 Tow Vehicle Operator:
Initial Permit/ Annual Renewal Flat 1.00 171$ 171$ $ 125 73%170$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Tow Vehicle Driver Permit (Five-Year)Per Driver 1.00 171$ 171$ $ 90 53%170$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P16 Renewal:
Tow Service Franchise Fee Per Vehicle 1.00 171$ 171$ $ 50 29%50$ 29%- -$ -$ -$
Replacement of Lost, Stolen, or Mutilated
Permits Per Permit 0.25 171$ 43$ $ 25 59%40$ 94%- -$ -$ -$
Reissued Permits Per Permit 0.25 171$ 43$ $ 25 59%40$ 94%- -$ -$ -$
P17 Photographs - Digital Photographs on Disks Per Copy 0.33 171$ 56$ $ 25 44%55$ 98%3 75$ 169$ 165$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police COS, Page 26 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.6
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Miscellaneous Fees
P18 Vehicle Abatement Per Vehicle [4]2.00 171$ 342$ $ 300 88%340$ 100%30 9,000$ 10,249$ 10,200$
P19 Video Tape Per Copy 0.50 100$ 50$ $ 40 80%50$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P20 DVD Video Per Copy 0.50 100$ 50$ $ 40 80%50$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P21 In Car/ Bodycam Video - DVD Per Copy 1.00 100$ 100$ $ 50 50%100$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P22 Cassette Tape Per Copy 0.50 100$ 50$ $ 10 20%50$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P23 CD - Audio Per Copy 0.50 100$ 50$ $ 25 50%50$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P24 Police Reports Per Page $ 0.25
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
- -$ -$ -$
P25 Special Personnel Services [5]
Security Personnel (Police Officer)
Staff Police Officer Per Hour 1.00 171$ 171$ $ 110 64%110$ 64%- -$ -$ -$
Discounted Rate for SSFUSD Per Hour 1.00 171$ 171$ $ 90 53%90$ 53%- -$ -$ -$
P26 Transcripts
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
- -$ -$ -$
P27 Emergency Response to Driving Under the
Influce (DUI) Accidents [6,7] Actual Wages +
50% overhead 100%Actual Costs 100%- -$ -$ -$
Incident Response (includes Accident, Hazmat,
DUI or other incident)[6] Actual Wages +
50% overhead 100%Actual Costs 100%- -$ -$ -$
P28 Towed Vehicle Release, Negligent Operator Per Vehicle 1.00 171$ 171$ $ 100 59%170$ 100%548 54,750$ 93,526$ 93,075$
P29 Plan Check & Condition Formulation (Bldg)flat 1.00 171$ 171$
Hourly direct
contract plan
check cost
100%170$ 100%130 -$ 22,207$ 22,100$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police COS, Page 27 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.6
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
P30 Site Inspections Hourly 1.00 171$ 171$
Hourly direct
contract plan
check cost
100%170$ 100%24 -$ 4,100$ 4,080$
P31 Firearm Storage Administration Fee
Single Firearm Flat 2.00 171$ 342$ $ 150 44%340$ 100%4 600$ 1,367$ 1,360$
Each Additional Weapon Flat 2.00 171$ 342$ $ 100 29%340$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
P32
new Ammunition Storage Administration Fee
Sworn Flat 0.50 171$ 85$
Non-Sworn Flat 0.50 100$ 50$
135$ $ - 0%135$ 100%520 -$ 70,392$ 70,392$
P33 Clearance Letter Flat 0.25 171$ 43$ $ 10 23%10$ 23%365 3,650$ 15,588$ 3,650$
P34 Hourly Rate:
Sworn 1.00 171$ 171$ $ - 0%170$ 100%-$ -$ -$
Non-Sworn 1.00 100$ 100$ $ - 0%100$ 100%-$ -$ -$
Support to Planning
PL4 Conditional Use Permit:Per
Application 0.50 171$ 85$
Residential or Civic Use
PL15 Development Agreement Deposit 0.50 171$ 85$
PL23 Design Review - Single Family Residential/New
or Additions to 2 or 3 Units
Per
Application 0.50 171$ 85$
PL24
Design Review - Multi-Family Residential /
Subdivisions 4 or More Units/ Modifications /
Additions to 4 or More Units
Per
Application 0.50 171$ 85$
PL25 Design Review - Commercial and Industrial Per
Application 0.50 171$ 85$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police COS, Page 28 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.6
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
PL26 Design Review - Projects Requiring Planning
Commission Approval Deposit 0.50 171$ 85$
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
TOTAL 84,476 234,275 220,227
[Notes]
[1]
[2]Up to three cards per individual.
[3]Resets every calendar year.
[4]On public roadway only.
[5]
[6]
[7]CA GC 53150-53159 DUI Maximum $12,000
[8]Penal code: SSFMC Ch. 6.32
[9]For Informational Purpose only
Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17 Master Fee Schedule"
Hourly salary plus 40% for benefits plus 30% in administration charges; 30-minute minimum
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost analysis
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 29 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
F5 1st Responder
Engine Company (3 person)Flat 0.75 419$ 315$ 1$ 0%315$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F6 Contracted BLS Inter-Facility Flat [6]401$ 401$
F7 Mileage (All levels)Per Mile [4]50$
F8 Oxygen Flat [4]120$
Fire Service EMS Training
F9 First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Residents (cost
of textbook and certification card)Per person [4]15$ 15$ 11 165$ 165$ 165$
F10 First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Non-Residents Per person [4]100$ 100$ 10 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$
F11 First-Aid / CPR Classes for SSF Businesses Per person [4]55$ 55$ - -$ -$ -$
F12 Heartsaver® CPR/AED Per person [4]50$ 50$ 21 1,050$ 1,050$ 1,050$
F13 Pediatric Education for Pre-hospital
Professionals Per person [4]120$ 120$ - -$ -$ -$
F14
American Heart Association "Professional
Level" courses for the public and other outside
agencies
ACLS Knowledge and Skills Review
Workshops Per person [4]175$ 175$ - -$ -$ -$
F15 Initial Recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per person [4]235$ 235$ - -$ -$ -$
Advance Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per person [4]235$ 235$ - -$ -$ -$
Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS-
HCP)Per person [4]75$ 75$ 29 2,175$ 2,175$ 2,175$
F16 Re-recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per person [4]190$ 190$ - -$ -$ -$
Advance Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per person [4]190$ 190$ - -$ -$ -$
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 30 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS-
HCP)Per person [4]50$ 50$ - -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 31 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
F17 Lead EKG Class Per person [4]200$ 200$ - -$ -$ -$
F18 Geriatric Education for Emergency Medical
Services Per person [4]190$ 190$ - -$ -$ -$
F19 Infrequent Paramedic Skills Per person [4]80$ 80$ - -$ -$ -$
F20 Other EMS Continuing Education Classes Per Hour Per
Person [4]8$ 8$ - -$ -$ -$
F21 Student Materials, Supplies, etc. Required to
Participate Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%71 -$ -$ -$
F22 Certification Fees required by Certifying
Authority Flat 5$ %5$ %- -$ -$ -$
Fire Training Division
F23 Emergency Response Team Class Per Hour Per
Person [8]1.00 166$ 166$ 10$ 6%28$ 17%- -$ -$ -$
F24 Permit Required Confined Space Class Per Hour Per
Person [8]1.00 166$ 166$ 10$ 6%28$ 17%- -$ -$ -$
F25 Hazardous Materials Responder Class Per Hour Per
Person [8]1.00 166$ 166$ 10$ 6%28$ 17%- -$ -$ -$
F26 Technical Rescue Class Per Hour Per
Person [8]1.00 166$ 166$ 10$ 6%28$ 17%- -$ -$ -$
F27 Vehicle Extrication Class Per Hour Per
Person [8]1.00 166$ 166$ 10$ 6%28$ 17%- -$ -$ -$
F28 Other Fire Training Continuing Education
Classes
Per Hour Per
Person [8]1.00 166$ 166$ 8$ 5%28$ 17%- -$ -$ -$
F29 Student Materials, Supplies, etc. Required to
Participate Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 32 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
F30 Certification Fees required by Certifying
Authority Flat 5$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 33 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Fire Prevention Division Permits and Fees
Fire Protective Systems Construction Permit
F32 Construction Without a Permit [4] 2 Times cost of
Permit
2 Times cost of
Permit - -$ -$ -$
F33
Fire Protective Stsytems Inspection Fees
(Inspection - includes 2 inspections; minimum
$125)
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
3.00 166$ 498$ 125.00$ 25%498$ 100%128 16,000$ 63,781$ 63,781$
$ 6,001 base fee @
$6,000 3.00 166$ 498$ 69.25$ 14%498$ 100%121 8,379$ 60,293$ 60,293$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.05 166$ 9$ 14.00$ 160%9$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 4.00 166$ 664$ 391.75$ 59%664$ 100%23 9,010$ 15,281$ 15,281$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.08 166$ 13$ 10.10$ 76%13$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 6.00 166$ 997$ 643.75$ 65%997$ 100%24 15,450$ 23,918$ 23,918$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.04 166$ 7$ 7.00$ 105%7$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 8.00 166$ 1,329$ 993.75$ 75%1,329$ 100%29 28,819$ 38,534$ 38,534$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.03 166$ 4$ 5.60$ 135%4$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 18.00 166$ 2,990$ 3,233.75$ 108%2,990$ 100%5 16,169$ 14,949$ 14,949$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.04 166$ 7$ 4.75$ 65%7$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 40.00 166$ 6,644$ 5,608.75$ 84%6,644$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.04 166$ 7$ 3.65$ 55%7$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 34 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
F109 Fire Protection Systems - Plan Check (Includes 2
checks & 1 re-check)
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
1.00 166$ 166$ 81.25$ 49%166$ 100%136 11,050$ 22,589$ 22,589$
$ 6,001 base fee @
$6,000 1.00 166$ 166$ 45.01$ 27%166$ 100%143 6,437$ 23,752$ 23,752$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.05 166$ 9$ 9.10$ 104%9$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 2.00 166$ 332$ 254.64$ 77%332$ 100%32 8,148$ 10,630$ 10,630$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.02 166$ 3$ 6.57$ 198%3$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 2.50 166$ 415$ 418.44$ 101%415$ 100%38 15,901$ 15,779$ 15,779$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.01 166$ 2$ 4.55$ 274%2$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 3.00 166$ 498$ 645.94$ 130%498$ 100%5 3,230$ 2,491$ 2,491$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.01 166$ 1$ 3.64$ 292%1$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 6.00 166$ 997$ 2,101.94$ 211%997$ 100%1 2,102$ 997$ 997$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.02 166$ 3$ 3.09$ 93%3$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 16.00 166$ 2,658$ 3,645.69$ 137%2,658$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.02 166$ 3$ 2.37$ 89%3$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 35 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
F108 Fire and Life Safety - Plan Check
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
1.00 166$ 166$ 50.00$ 30%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 6,001 base fee @
$6,000 1.00 166$ 166$ 27.70$ 17%166$ 100%35 970$ 5,813$ 5,813$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.05 166$ 9$ 5.60$ 64%9$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 2.00 166$ 332$ 156.70$ 47%332$ 100%27 4,231$ 8,969$ 8,969$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.08 166$ 13$ 4.04$ 30%13$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 4.00 166$ 664$ 257.50$ 39%664$ 100%40 10,300$ 26,575$ 26,575$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.24 166$ 40$ 2.80$ 7%40$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 16.00 166$ 2,658$ 397.50$ 15%2,658$ 100%83 32,993$ 220,575$ 220,575$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.06 166$ 10$ 2.24$ 22%10$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 40.00 166$ 6,644$ 1,293.50$ 19%6,644$ 100%16 20,696$ 106,301$ 106,301$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.04 166$ 7$ 1.90$ 29%7$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 64.00 166$ 10,630$ 2,243.50$ 21%10,630$ 100%57 127,880$ 605,917$ 605,917$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.06 166$ 11$ 1.46$ 14%11$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F34 Construction Without a Permit [4] Two Times Cost
of Permit
Two Times Cost
of Permit - -$ -$ -$
Other Fire Prevention Inspections
F35 Annual Fire Inspection (Basic)Flat 1.50 166$ 249$ 125$ 50%249$ 100%320 40,000$ 79,726$ 79,726$
F36 Non-Construction Fire Re-inspection Fee Flat 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F37 Inspections Outside Normal Business Hours Flat 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 36 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
F38 Construction Re-inspection Fees Flat 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F39 Inspection for Which a Fee is not Specifically
Indicated Flat 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F40 Annual High-rise Building (2 Hr. Minimum)Flat 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F41 New Occupancy / Business Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%17 2,125$ 5,647$ 5,647$
F43
Group R, Division 1 Occupancies; Including
Condominiums Classified as Group R, Division 3
with 3 or More Dwelling Units Per Building
($125 minimum charge)
0-10 Per living unit 1.50 166$ 249$ 10$ 4%249$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
11-30 Per living unit 3.00 166$ 498$ 10$ 2%498$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
31-50 Per living unit 5.00 166$ 830$ 10$ 1%830$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
>50; each 50 Per living unit 8.00 166$ 1,329$ 10$ 1%1,329$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F45 Title 19, 5 Year Automatic Fire Sprinkler
Certification Per System 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%72 9,000$ 23,918$ 23,918$
F46 Pre-inspection of Residential Care Facilities Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 50$ 15%332$ 100%10 500$ 3,322$ 3,322$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 37 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Operational Permits
F49 Aerosol Products Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%1 125$ 332$ 332$
F50 Assemblies Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%99 12,375$ 32,887$ 32,887$
F51 Automobile Wrecking Yard Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F52 Battery Systems Per System 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F53 Candles and Open Flames in Assembly Areas Per Assembly 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F54 Combustible Fiber Storage Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F55 Combustible Material Storage Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%2 250$ 664$ 664$
F56 Commercial Rubbish-handling Operation Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F57 Compressed Gases Per System 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%20 2,500$ 3,322$ 3,322$
F58 Cryogens Per System 3.00 166$ 498$ 125$ 25%498$ 100%16 2,000$ 7,973$ 7,973$
F59 Dry Cleaning Plants Flat 3.00 166$ 498$ 125$ 25%498$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F60 Dust Producing Operations Flat 3.00 166$ 498$ 125$ 25%498$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F61 Fire Alarm Per Building 3.00 166$ 498$ 125$ 25%498$ 100%92 11,500$ 45,842$ 45,842$
F62 Flammable of Combustible Liquids, Pipelines,
Store, Handle, or Use.Per Tank 3.00 166$ 498$ 125$ 25%498$ 100%87 10,875$ 43,351$ 43,351$
F63 Hazardous Materials Storage, Transport on Site,
Dispense, Use, or Handle Chemicals Per Building [2]4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%35 4,375$ 23,253$ 23,253$
F64
Hazardous Materials in Excess by Classifications;
Store, Transport on Site, Dispense, Use, or
Handle Chemicals in Excess of Amounts Listed in
Table 105-C
Per class of
chemical at
each location
2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 38 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
F65 High-piled Storage Per Location 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%20 2,500$ 13,288$ 13,288$
F66 Institutions and Day Care Per Location 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%10 1,250$ 3,322$ 3,322$
F67 Large Family Day Care Per Location 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F68 Lumberyards Flat 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F69 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Per Tank 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%22 2,750$ 7,308$ 7,308$
F70 Magnesium Working Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F71 Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Stations Per Location 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%16 2,000$ 5,315$ 5,315$
F72 Organic Coatings Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F73 Ovens, Industrial Baking or Drying Per Oven 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%9 1,125$ 1,495$ 1,495$
F74 Permit-Required Confined Space Per Space 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%22 2,750$ 7,308$ 7,308$
F75 Pyrotechnical Special Effects Material Flat 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F76 Radioactive Materials Per Location 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%13 1,625$ 4,318$ 4,318$
F77 Refrigeration Equipment Per System 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%21 2,625$ 3,488$ 3,488$
F78 Residential Care and Residential Care for the
Elderly Per Location 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F79 Repair Garages Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%68 8,500$ 22,589$ 22,589$
F80 Spraying or Dipping Per Tank 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%30 3,750$ 9,966$ 9,966$
F81 Tire Storage Flat 3.00 166$ 498$ 125$ 25%498$ 100%3 375$ 1,495$ 1,495$
F82 Wood Products Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%1 125$ 332$ 332$
F83 Wielding and Cutting Operations Per Location 3.00 166$ 498$ 125$ 25%498$ 100%52 6,500$ 25,911$ 25,911$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 39 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
F84 Failure to Obtain a Permit Varies [4] Two Times
Permit Cost
Two Times
Permit Cost - -$ -$ -$
F86
Flammable or Combustible Liquids; Remove,
Install, Construct, Alter or Abandon an
Underground or Above Ground Tank
Per Tank 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F87
Hazardous Materials; Install, Repair, Abandon,
Remove, Place-Out-of-Service, Tanks or Piping,
Close or Substantially Modify a Storage Facility
Per Tank 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Special Activity Permits
F89 Candles or Open Flames in Assembly Areas Per Event 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F90 Carnivals and Fairs Per Event 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%2 250$ 1,329$ 1,329$
F91 Christmas Tree Lots Per Event 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%4 500$ 2,658$ 2,658$
F92 Explosives or Blasting Agents Flat 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F93 Fire Hydrants and Water-Control Valves Per Event 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%19 2,375$ 6,312$ 6,312$
F95 Fireworks Displays by a Licensed Professional Per Event 4.00 166$ 664$ 125$ 19%664$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F96 Fumigation/Thermal Insecticide Per
Occurrence 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F98 Parade Floats Per Event 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F99 Temporary Membrane Structures (tents)Per Structure 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%17 2,125$ 5,647$ 5,647$
F101 Failure to Obtain a Permit Varies [4] Two Times
Permit Cost
Two Times
Permit Cost - -$ -$ -$
Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Fees
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 40 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
F102 Hazard Mitigation Fee (Includes all other
incident types)[3,4] Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
F103 Minimum Fire Protection System Plan Check For <$6,000
valuation 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F104 Application for Use of Alternate Methods of
Protection Per Request 1.50 166$ 250$ 250$ 100%250$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F105 Emergency Response DUI Cost Recovery [3,4,5] Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
F106 Emergency Response Hazmat Cost Recovery [3,4] Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%3 -$ -$ -$
F107 Investigations Hourly 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F111 Additional Fire Plan Review (2 hr. minimum)Hourly 1.00 166$ 166$ 125$ 75%166$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F112 Fire Watch [3] Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
F113 Key Box Service Per Location 0.50 166$ 83$ 50$ 60%83$ 100%2 100$ 166$ 166$
F114 Preventable False Alarms
2nd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Flat [4]100$ 100$ 57 5,700$ 5,700$ 5,700$
3rd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Flat [4]200$ 200$ - -$ -$ -$
4th and other additional alarms within 12
months of the 1st preventable alarm Flat [4]300$ 500$ - -$ -$ -$
False Alarm Response (average)Flat [7]1.00 419$ 419$
F117 Plan Digitizing Fee
5% of
building/fire
permit fee
$0.05 per letter;
$0.75 per plan;
$0.05 per image
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 41 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Miscellaneous
F124 Reproduction of Printed Fire and Paramedic
Reports Per Page [4]0.25$
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
F125
Administrative Code Enforcement Fee (for
failure to correct violations after receiving
Courtesy Notice from Fire Prevention Division
14 day grace period to correct)
Flat 2.00 166$ 332$ 125$ 38%332$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
F126 Hourly Rate:
Prevention 1.00 166$ 166$ $ - 0%166$ 100%-$ -$ -$
Emergency Services
Engine Company (3 person)1.00 419$ 419$ $ - 0%419$ 100%-$ -$ -$
Ambulance (2 person)1.00 280$ 280$ $ - 0%280$ 100%-$ -$ -$
Support to Planning
PL1 Planned Unit Development Deposit 1.00 166$ 166$
PL2 Precise Plan Deposit 1.00 166$ 166$
PL4 Conditional Use Permit:
Residential or Civic Use Per
Application 1.00 166$ 166$
All Others Per
Application 1.00 166$ 166$
PL6 Temporary Use Permit Per Permit 1.00 166$ 166$
PL7 Minor Use Permit
Residential Per Permit 1.00 166$ 166$
PL11 Specific Plan 1.00 166$ 166$
PL15 Development Agreement 1.00 166$ 166$
PL24
Design Review - Multi-Family Residential /
Subdivisions 4 or More Units/ Modifications /
Additions to 4 or More Units
1.00 166$ 166$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire COS, Page 42 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.7
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PL25 Design Review - Commercial and Industrial 1.00 166$ 166$
PL26 Design Review - Projects Requiring Planning
Commission Approval 1.00 166$ 166$
PL27 Design Review - Resubmitted (after 2 reviews by
Design Review Board)1.00 166$ 166$
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
TOTAL 484,703 1,669,717 1,669,717
[Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]AMR/Kaiser Agreement; not included in cost analysis; fee set per agreement
[7]For informational purpose only.
[8]Class size ratio used is 1:6
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost analysis
CA GC 53150-53159 DUI Maximum $12,000
Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17 Master Fee Schedule"
For each location/building that contains 55 gallons or more of a liquid, 500 pounds or more of a solid, or 200 cubic feet or more of a compressed gas
The cost shall include the provision of scene supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefit costs of the employees that responded to the incident.
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW - Eng COS, Page 43 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - Engineering User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.8
Engineering Division
Inspection and Encroachment
PW1 Improvement Plan Check - (covers 2 plan checks
and re-check)
Cost of Improvments
Up to $50,000
Minimum base
fee up to
$50,000
4.00 144$ 575$ $ 300 52%575$ 100%367 110,100$ 211,052$ 211,052$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 6.00 144$ 863$ $ 300 35%863$ 100%1 300$ 863$ 863$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.04 144$ 6$ $ - 0%6$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 8.00 144$ 1,150$ $ 2,100 183%1,150$ 100%1 2,100$ 1,150$ 1,150$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.15 144$ 21$ $ - 0%21$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 250,001 base fee @
$250,000 30.00 144$ 4,313$ $ 5,100 118%4,313$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.04 144$ 6$ $ - 0%6$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 40.00 144$ 5,751$ $ 10,100 176%5,751$ 100%1 10,100$ 5,751$ 5,751$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.08 144$ 12$ $ - 0%12$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 80.00 144$ 11,501$ $ 20,100 175%11,501$ 100%1 20,100$ 11,501$ 11,501$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.08 144$ 12$ $ - 0%12$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
4th and subsequent Plan Check 1.00 144$ 144$ $ - 0%144$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW - Eng COS, Page 44 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - Engineering User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.8
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PW1.1 Improvement Inspection (covers 2 inspections)
Cost of Improvments
Up to $50,000
Minimum base
fee up to
$50,000
3.00 144$ 431$ $ 200 46%431$ 100%367 73,400$ 158,289$ 158,289$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 3.00 144$ 431$ $ 200 46%431$ 100%1 200$ 431$ 431$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.03 144$ 4$ $ - 0%4$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 4.50 144$ 647$ $ 200 31%647$ 100%1 200$ 647$ 647$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.01 144$ 1$ $ - 0%1$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 250,001 base fee @
$250,000 6.00 144$ 863$ $ 200 23%863$ 100%30 6,000$ 25,878$ 25,878$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.02 144$ 2$ $ - 0%2$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 10.00 144$ 1,438$ $ 200 14%1,438$ 100%1 200$ 1,438$ 1,438$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.02 144$ 3$ $ - 0%3$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 20.00 144$ 2,875$ $ 200 7%2,875$ 100%1 200$ 2,875$ 2,875$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 0.02 144$ 3$ $ - 0%3$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW2 Encroachment Permit Inspection Fee (covers
two inpections)Flat [8]
PW-Eng 1.00 144$ 144$
Planning 1.00 163$ 163$
307$ 200$ 65%307$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Additional Visits Beyond Two Per Visit 1.00 144$ 144$ 100$ 70%144$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Miscellaneous Processing Fee
PW4
On-site inspection/processing fee for the
recordation of the condition of the private
sewer lateral.
Per Recordation 0.00 144$ -$ 150$ %-$ %- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW - Eng COS, Page 45 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - Engineering User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.8
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PW5
Off-site inspection/processing fee for the
recordation of the condition of the private
sewer lateral. (DVD Review)
Per Recordation 0.50 144$ 72$ 75$ 104%72$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Subdivision Maps
PW6 Inspection Deposit Deposit [6]
2% of public
improvement
costs
2% of public
improvement
costs
- -$ -$ -$
PW7 Major Subdivision Tentative Map Flat [8]
PW-Eng 1.00 144$ 144$
Planning 1.00 163$ 163$
307$ 500$ 163%307$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Per Lot Per Unit 0.17 144$ 24$ 25$ 102%24$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW8 Final Map Filing Fee Flat [8]
PW-Eng 1.00 144$ 144$
Planning 1.00 163$ 163$
307$ 1,000$ 326%307$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Per Lot Per Unit 0.17 144$ 24$ 25$ 102%24$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW9 Minor Subdivision Tentative Map Flat 1.00 144$ 144$ 500$ 348%144$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Per Lot Per Unit 0.17 144$ 24$ 25$ 102%24$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW10 Parcel Map Filing Fee Per Map 2.00 144$ 288$ 500$ 174%288$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW11 Lot Line Adjustment Per Adjustment [8]
PW-Eng 1.00 144$ 144$
Planning 1.00 163$ 163$
307$ 400$ 130%307$ 100%3 1,200$ 921$ 921$
PW12 After-hours Site Inspections [2,6]Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW14 Easement Abandonment Request Per easement 25.00 144$ 3,594$ 400$ 11%3,594$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW - Eng COS, Page 46 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - Engineering User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.8
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PW15
Subdivision and Parcel Map Plan Check
(includes Coordination and administartion
costs)
Deposit [2,8]
PW-Eng 6.00 144$ 863$
Planning 1.00 163$ 163$
1,026$ Actual Cost %1,026$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW16 Transportation - Single trip, or a modification of
an original permit Flat [7]0.20 144$ 29$ 16$ 56%16$ 56%- -$ -$ -$
PW17 Transportation - Annual or repetitive permit Flat [7]0.75 144$ 108$ 75$ 70%90$ 83%- -$ -$ -$
PW18 Copy of CD/DVD
Refer To City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
Miscellaneous Fees
PW22 Grading Plan Check and Permit Processing
(Cubic Yards)
50 Cubic Yards or Less Flat 2.00 144$ 288$ No Fee %288$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
51 to 100 Cubic Yards Flat 4.00 144$ 575$ 100$ 17%575$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
101 to 1,000 Cubic Yards Flat 4.00 144$ 575$ 150$ 26%575$ 100%1 150$ 575$ 575$
1,001 to 10,00 Cubic Yards Flat 8.00 144$ 1,150$ 200$ 17%1,150$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
10,001 Base Fee @
10,000 10.00 144$ 1,438$ 200$ 14%1,438$ 100%2 400$ 2,875$ 2,875$
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
0.06 144$ 8$ 100$ 1251%8$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
100,001 Base Fee @
100,000 10.50 144$ 1,510$ 1,100$ 73%1,510$ 100%1 1,100$ 1,510$ 1,510$
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
0.05 144$ 7$ 60$ 835%7$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
200,001 Base Fee @
200,000 11.00 144$ 1,581$ 1,700$ 107%1,581$ 100%2 3,400$ 3,163$ 3,163$
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
0.55 144$ 79$ 30$ 38%79$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW - Eng COS, Page 47 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - Engineering User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.8
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PW23
Other plan checking and additional plan reviews
required by changes, additions, or revisions to
approved plans.
[2]2.00 144$ 288$ Actual Cost %288$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW24 Grading Inspection Fees (Cubic Yards)
50 Cubic Yards or Less Flat 2.00 144$ 288$ 20$ 7%288$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
51 to 100 Cubic Yards Flat 2.00 144$ 288$ 30$ 10%288$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
101 to 1,000 Cubic Yards Flat 2.00 144$ 288$ 150$ 52%288$ 100%1 150$ 288$ 288$
1,001 to 10,00 Cubic Yards Flat 3.00 144$ 431$ 200$ 46%431$ 100%7 1,400$ 3,019$ 3,019$
10,001 Base Fee @
10,000 3.00 144$ 431$ 264$ 61%431$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
0.11 144$ 16$ 54$ 338%16$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
100,001 Base Fee @
100,000 4.00 144$ 575$ 750$ 130%575$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof
each add'l
100,000 cubic
yards
0.20 144$ 29$ 30$ 104%29$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
200,001 Base Fee @
200,000 6.00 144$ 863$ 1,250$ 145%863$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
0.30 144$ 43$ 30$ 70%43$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
Other Inspections
PW25 Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours Hourly [3,6]Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW26 Re-inspection Assessed Under Provisions of
Section 305(h)Flat [4]1.00 Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW27 Inspections for which a fee is not specifically
indicated Hourly [4,6]Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW - Eng COS, Page 48 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - Engineering User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.8
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Water Quality Control Division
Pretreatment Fee Schedule
PW28 Permits and Renewals: (valid for 3 year time
intervals)
Significant Industrial Users Every 3 years [5]4.00 144$ 575$ 450$ 78%575$ 100%64 28,800$ 36,805$ 36,805$
All Other Required Businesses Every 3 years 1.00 144$ 144$ 120$ 83%144$ 100%700 84,000$ 100,638$ 100,638$
PW31 Inspections - Outside of Normal Pretreatment
Activities Per Hour 1.00 144$ 144$ 75$ 52%144$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW32 Inspections - Outside of Normal Business Hours Per Hour 1.00 144$ 144$ 90$ 63%144$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW33 Special Monitoring Activites for Enforcement
and Surveillance Per Hour 1.00 144$ 144$ 75$ 52%144$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW34 Special Sampling/Equipment Use Per Hour 1.00 144$ 144$ 150$ 104%144$ 100%- -$ -$ -$
PW35 Wastewater Analysis
BOD Per Test [6]80$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
COD Per Test [6]55$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
TSS Per Test [6]40$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Oil & Grease Per Test [6]95$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Metals (except Hg)Per Test [6]30$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Hg Per Test [6]80$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
pH Per Test [6]20$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Bioassay Per Test [6]450$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
CN Per Test [6]135$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
PAH Per Test [6]300$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Phenol Per Test [6]105$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Ammonia Per Test [6]40$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Conductivity Per Test [6]40$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Oxygen Uptake Rate Per Test [6]150$ %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Others [6] Determined by
Superintendent %Actual Cost 100%- -$ -$ -$
Hourly Rate:
Public Works - Engineering 1.00 144$ 144$ $ - 0%144$ 100%-$ -$ -$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW - Eng COS, Page 49 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - Engineering User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.8
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Support to Planning
PL1 Planned Unit Development Deposit 8.00 144$ 1,150$
PL2 Precise Plan Deposit 8.00 144$ 1,150$
PL3 Precise Plan Modification (Residential Only)Deposit 8.00 144$ 1,150$
PL4 Conditional Use Permit:
Residential or Civic Use Per Application 4.00 144$ 575$
PL5 Conditional Use Permit Modification Flat 4.00 144$ 575$
PL6 Temporary Use Permit Per Permit 4.00 144$ 575$
PL11 Specific Plan Deposit 24.00 144$ 3,450$
PL13 General Plan Amendments Deposit 8.00 144$ 1,150$
PL14 Master Plan Deposit 24.00 144$ 3,450$
PL15 Development Agreement Deposit 40.00 144$ 5,751$
PL23
Design Review - Single Family
Residential/New or Additions to 2 or 3
Units
Per Application 4.00 144$ 575$
PL24
Design Review - Multi-Family Residential /
Subdivisions 4 or More Units/ Modifications
/ Additions to 4 or More Units
Per Application 4.00 144$ 575$
PL25 Design Review - Commercial and Industrial Per Application 4.00 144$ 575$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW - Eng COS, Page 50 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - Engineering User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.8
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
PL26 Design Review - Projects Requiring Planning
Commission Approval Deposit 8.00 144$ 1,150$
PL27 Design Review - Resubmitted (after 2
reviews by Design Review Board)Flat 4.00 144$ 575$
PL49 Sidewalk Dining Permit (Annual)Flat 1.00 144$ 144$
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
TOTAL 343,500 569,670 569,670
[Notes]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]Maximum per State law ($16/ $90)
[8]Includes support costs from Planning
Defined in federal regulations and municipal ordinance.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost analysis
Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17 Master Fee Schedule"
Hourly salary, plus 40% in benefits and another 30% in administrative costs; 1/2 hour minimum
Hourly salary, plus 50% overtime rate, plus 50% for benefits on base rate, plus 12% in administrative charges. Three-hour minimum.
Hourly salary, plus 50% for benefits on base rate, plus 12% in administrative charges. One half-hour minimum.
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library COS, Page 51 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.9
Damaged and Missing Materials
L1 AV Materials (contents or item damage)[4] Actual Cost of
each item 100% Actual Cost of
each item 100%
L3 CD/DVD Cases, Replacement of Lost or
Damaged Per Case 0.07 111$ 8$ $ 2 21%2$ 21%
Missing Book, DVD, etc. from Set [4] Actual Cost of
each item 100% Actual Cost of
each item 100%
Missing CD - from Audio Book Vendors that
offer Replacement [4] Prorated Cost
of set 100% Prorated Cost of
set 100%
L7 Books [4] Actual Cost of
each item 100% Actual Cost of
each item 100%
L8 Equipment [4] Actual Cost of
each item 100% Actual Cost of
each item 100%
L9
Fines for Overdue Materials - Adult Materials,
Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs etc.
(Only affects adult borrowers)
Daily [4,5] $ 0.25 0.25$
L10
Fines for Overdue Materials - Children's
Materials - Books, Audio, Video, Magazines,
DVDs, etc. (Only affects adult borrowers)
Daily [4,5] $ 0.15 0.15$
L16 Lost, Replacement Charges - Magazines - See
Processing Fee Below [4] Actual Cost of
each item 100% Actual Cost of
each item 100%
L18
Lost, Replacement Charges - Processing Fee
(Peninsula Library Automated Network Policy)
Applies to all Materials:
Catalogued Materials Each [5]0.12 111$ 13$ $ 5 37%5$ 37%
Generic Materials Each [5]0.08 111$ 9$ $ 2 22%2$ 22%
Miscellaneous Charges
L19 Past Due Patron Accounts Referred to a
Collection Agency Per Referral [5]0.00 111$ -$ $ 10 10$
Current Fee /
Deposit
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library COS, Page 52 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.9
Current Fee /
Deposit
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
L20 Paypal Convenience Fee Per
Transaction [4]111$ -$ $ 0.50 0.50$
L21 Computer Printouts
Black & White Per Sheet [4] $ 0.15 0.15$
Color Per Sheet [4] $ 0.50 0.50$
L22 History Book - SSF Each [4]111$ -$ $ 5 5$
L23 History Room Photographs - Digital Copies
Copy of CD/DVD (see City Clerk fee
schedule)
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
L24 History Room Photographs Print Copies Per Item 0.33 111$ 37$ $ 15 40%15$ 40%
L25 Postcards - SSF, 3.5" x 5"
Black and White Each [4] $ 0.50 0.50$
Color Each [4] $ 1 1.00$
L26 Microfilm Copies Each [4] $ 0.25 0.25$
L27 Photocopy Per Page [4]111$ -$ $ 0.20 0.20$
L28 Postcard, ID [4]
Price set by
United States
Postal Service
Price set by
United States
Postal Service
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library COS, Page 53 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.9
Current Fee /
Deposit
Fee
No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
L29 Reserve: Out of County Reserve / Inter-Library
Loan
SSF residents Flat [4] $ 3 3$
non-residents Flat [4] $ 5 5$
L30 Returned Check, Insufficient Funds
See Finance
Department
Section
L33 USB Drives Flat [2,4] Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%
L34 Field Trip Fee Flat [3,4] Actual Cost 100%Actual Cost 100%
Hourly Rate
Full-time 1.00 111$ 111$ $ - 0%111$ 100%
Part-time 1.00 23$ 23$ $ - 0%23$ 100%
For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass-through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the
use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
TOTAL
[Notes]
[1]
[2]$4-$10 depending upon unit cost
[3]
[4]
[5]Fee set by Peninsula Library System (PLS)
Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 16-17 Master Fee Schedule"
$10-$40 depending upon cost of transportation, admission, etc.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost analysis
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Parks & Rec Progr Summary,Page 54 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Parks and Recreation - User Fee Study FY 17
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate APPENDIX A.10
PROGRAMMATIC COST RECOVERY SUMMARY
Program Direct Labor Non-Labor Citywide
Overhead
Department/
Division Admin
Total Program
Costs
Annual Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee [9]
Annual Surplus /
Deficit
Current Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Percentage
CULTURAL ARTS 145,301 - 45,480 7,989 198,770 - (198,770)$ 0%0%
CONCERT IN THE PARK [14]- 60,463 - - 60,463 20,500 (39,963)$ 34%34%
17230 - AQUATIC PROGRAM 494,554 133,639 100,522 75,174 803,890 338,292 (465,597) 42%42%
17240 - SPORTS & ATHLETICS 329,224 59,298 44,603 44,681 477,806 69,789 (408,018) 15%15%
17250 - RENTALS/PICNICS 420,633 12,406 9,332 45,635 488,006 481,099 (6,906) 99%99%
17260 - CLASSES/EVENTS 549,036 28,797 21,661 61,844 661,338 531,618 (129,720) 80%80%
17270 - REAL PROGRAM 173,756 7,420 5,581 19,266 206,023 136,025 (69,998) 66%66%
17275 - CHILDCARE 2,323,591 206,142 155,060 276,962 2,961,755 2,145,505 (816,251) 72%72%
17276 - SENIOR CENTERS 552,750 76,963 57,891 70,933 758,537 198,709 (559,828) 26%26%
17320 - PARK MAINTENANCE [7]2,208,506 663,327 498,952 1,107,870 4,478,656 - - n/a n/a
17320 - PARK MAINTENANCE Adjustment [13](2,208,506) (663,327) (498,952) (1,107,870) (4,478,656) - - n/a n/a
Community Gardens & Art Studio Rentals [12]- - - - 21,441 21,441 - n/a n/a
17340 - STREET TREE MAINTENANCE 412,621 22,457 16,892 148,548 600,519 - - n/a n/a
17340 - STREET TREE MAINTENANCE Adjustment [13](412,621) (22,457) (16,892) (148,548) (600,519) - - n/a n/a
Tree Removal Permt Permit Cost: 2 hours @ $129/hour = $258; Recommended Fee $100 per tree n/a n/a
17420 - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE [8]0 795 598 675,250 676,644 - - n/a n/a
17420 - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Adjustment [13](0) (795) (598) (675,250) (676,644) - - n/a n/a
17999 - GRANTS - PARKS & REC [15]267,281 29,454 22,156 32,897 351,787 252,175 (99,612) 72%72%
231-17531 - WEST PARK 3 MAINTENANCE 402,393 329,175 247,604 31,135 1,010,307 - - n/a n/a
231-17531 - WEST PARK 3 MAINTENANCE Adjustment [11](402,393) (329,175) (247,604) (31,135) (1,010,307) - - n/a n/a
232-17532 - STONEGATE RDG MAINT 102,144 39,195 29,482 5,432 176,253 - - n/a n/a
232-17532 - STONEGATE RDG MAINT Adjustment [11](102,144) (39,195) (29,482) (5,432) (176,253) - - n/a n/a
233-17533 - WILLOW GARDENS MAINT 11,763 35,757 26,896 2,366 76,783 - - n/a n/a
233-17533 - WILLOW GARDENS MAINT Adjustment [11](11,763) (35,757) (26,896) (2,366) (76,783) - - n/a n/a
234-17530 - WEST PARK 1 & 2 MAINTENANCE 147,962 181,461 136,494 14,815 480,732 - - n/a n/a
234-17530 - WEST PARK 1 & 2 MAINTENANCE Adjustment [11](147,962) (181,461) (136,494) (14,815) (480,732) - - n/a n/a
710-13315 SEWER MAINTENANCE [10]1,417,197 242,170 182,159 58,555 1,900,081 - - n/a n/a
710-13315 SEWER MAINTENANCE - Adjustment [11](1,417,197) (242,170) (182,159) (58,555) (1,900,081) - - n/a n/a
720-13720 - PARKING DISTRICT OPERATIONS [10]339,876 346,403 260,563 30,107 976,949 - - n/a n/a
720-13720 - PARKING DISTRICT OPERATIONS Adjustment [11](339,876) (346,403) (260,563) (30,107) (976,949) - n/a n/a
740-13820 DRAINAGE [10]856,635 333,705 251,012 45,831 1,487,183 - - n/a n/a
740-13820 DRAINAGE Adjustment [11](856,635) (333,705) (251,012) (45,831) (1,487,183) - - n/a n/a
Misc Revenue (included in Admin)1,900 n/a n/a
Total 5,256,127$ 614,582$ 462,286$ 635,380$ 6,989,816$ 4,197,053$ (2,794,663)$ 60%60%
[8] Includes costs for Program 17971 Minor Facilities Repairs/ Improvements; represents costs not accounted for in Cost Allocation Plan
[9] Sourced from FY 15-16 Revenue Actuals
[10] Cost provided for information purposes only
[7] Includes costs for Program 17970 Minor Park Imporvements; excluded for cost analysis purposes; general community benefit; Community Gardens & Art Studio costs have been reduced
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Parks & Rec Progr Summary,Page 55 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Parks and Recreation - User Fee Study FY 17
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate APPENDIX A.10
[11] Funds 231, 232, 233, 234, 710, 720 and 740 Programs excluded from Parks and Recreation Cost Analysis
[13] Park, Street Tree and Facility Maintenance Maintenance have been excluded from cost analysis; intent is to capture Recreation related programs and services
[12] Community Gardens and Art Studio costs equal to revenue have been removed from Park Maintenance program costs and shown here; not not included in cost analysis detail
[14] Concert in the Park Program included in Summary Table only; New in FY 15/16, therefore FY 16/17 used for cost analysis purposes; detail costs are included in Cultural Arts programs
[15] Revenue provided by P&R email dated 5.9.17 from Angela Duldulao; Big Lift Grant revenue is received on a reimbursement basis and has a different base year (Sept-Aug); revenue does not match the revenue
report
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 GP Surcharge, Page 56 of 142
City of South San Francisco APPENDIX A.11
General Plan Maintenance Fee
Cost Total Cost
Amortization Period
(Yrs)Annual Cost
Housing Element Update 100,000$ 8 12,500$
General Plan
Comprehensive Update 1,400,000$ 10 140,000
City Staff Support
(Annual/On-going)667,373 1 667,373
Subtotal 2,167,373 819,873
Adjustment - Fund
Balance (1,828,955) 10 (182,896)
Total $ 338,417 $ 636,977
Percentage of Building Permit Valuation
Cost Recovery Target Annual Cost @
Target
Surcharge Based on
Applicable Building
Permit Valuation
100% $ 636,977 0.16%
75%477,733$ 0.12%
50%318,489$ 0.08%
25%159,244$ 0.04%
386,516,566$
642,962$
Current Cost Recovery Percentage 100.94%
<= current fee policy (.15%)
FY 15/16 applicable building valuation > $100K
valuation
Estimated Annual GP Surcharge Revenue
(FY 15/16)
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Clerk, Page 57 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Agendas, Transcripts, Administrative Codes
CC1 Agendas: City Council Annually [8] $ 40 $ 40 $ 45 $6 P&R
CC2 Successor Agency Annually $ 35 $ 35 No Comparison No Comparison
CC3 Oversight Board or any other legislative body Annually $ 35 $ 35 No Comparison No Comparison
CC4 Transcripts $ -
Folio Rate [9] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Additional Copies Per Page [9] $ 0.25 $ 0.10
Subpoena Processing Fees
CC5
Complying with each subpoena and delivering records
to attorney, attorney's representative, or deposition
officer
Per Hr/Per
Person [3] $ 15 $ 15 $138/hr property records
(Public Services) No Comparison
CC6 Clerical costs incurred in locating and making records
available
Per Hr/Per
Person $ 24 $ 24 No Comparison $6 PD
CC7 Standard reproduction of documents 8 1/2 x 14 inches
or less Per Page [7,9] $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $0.10 - $0.25 No Comparison $ 0.15 $ 0.15
CC8 Standard reproduction of larger size documents Per Page [9] $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 1.50 No Comparison Actual Costs $0.20 8.5"X14"; $0.25
11"X17" PW
CC9 Daily cost for a non-public safety employee required to
remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoena Per Day $ 150 $ 150 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison $275 PD
CC10 Daily cost for a public safety employee required to
remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoena Per Day $ 275 $ 275 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
CC11 Daily cost for a custodian of records to appear to
describe records Per Day $ 150 $ 150 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Other Fees
CC13 Campaign Disclosure Statements (FPPC)Per Page [9] $ 0.10 $ 0.10 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
CC14 Candidate Statements Deposit [4] $ 600 $ 1,000 No Comparison Varies $ 550 No Comparison
CC15
Candidates Election Manual
(for non-candidates, persons who fail to file
nomination papers, or withdraw candidacy)
Flat [9] $ 50 $ - No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Fee San Bruno San Mateo
No Comparison No Comparison
Daly City
No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison
Recommended Fee
No Comparison No Comparison
Redwood City
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Clerk, Page 58 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Fee San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended Fee Redwood City
CC16 Duplication of Videotapes onto DVDs/CDs Flat $ 10 $ 53 $25 *PD No Comparison No Comparison $48 Fire; $26 VCR, $12
DVD/CD PD
CC17 Preparing Proof of Residence Letters or Notarizing
Proof of Living Documents Flat $ 10 $ 9 No Comparison $43 plus $3 for each
additional page No Comparison No Comparison
CC18 Postage Flat Actual Cost Actual Cost No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
CC19 Duplication of Council meeting audio file to CD Per CD $ 7.50 $ 18 No Comparison No Comparison $ 20.00 No Comparison
CC20 Copy of CD/DVD
External file Per CD $ 7.50 $ 13
Non-existing file Per CD $ 7.50 $ 18
City Clerk Meeting Per CD $ 7.50 $ 27
City-Wide Reproduction of Printed Matter
CC21 Blueprinting:
Blue Line copies Per s.f.[9] $ 0.30 Actual Cost
Sepia Line copies ($4 minimum)Per s.f. $ 0.60 Actual Cost
CC22 Photocopying of all items not otherwise listed in this
Master Fee Schedule Per Page [5,9] $ 0.25 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
CC24 Published materials for which there is a stated cost.Flat [9] Actual Cost Actual Cost No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
No Comparison $48 Fire; $12 DVD/CD PD
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Complying with each subpoena and delivering records to attorney, attorney's representative, or deposition officer. Unless the subpoenaing party or his/her representative comes to the City personally to inspect and copy
the requested records, then the City's fee cannot exceed $15.
Proportionate share of actual cost imposed by San Mateo County Clerk / Elections Office. [December 19, 1979, R:143-1979]
Under the Public Records Act, the City may charge users for photocopying or duplicating records. If a Citizen claims that they are economically disadvantaged or indigent, staff may waive the fee for photo0copying the first
ten pages. Not more than ten pages per day per citizen may be waived under these circumstances. (Up to $2.50 per day per person)
This fee does not include charges for time spent by City staff gathering City records under the Public Records Act. Rather, it charges for time spent compiling and gathering data and putting it into another format requested
by a member of the public, which is not covered under the Public Records Act. Note that requests for analysis or compilation of City data are discretionary requests, and are dependent on staff availability and time
constraints.
Per Public Records Act ($ .10 per page)
Agendas that are emailed have no charge.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost analysis
ten cents ($0.10) per page for standard reproduction of documents of a size 8 1/2 by 14 inches or less; twenty cents ($0.20) per page for copying of documents from microfilm
No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Clerk, Page 59 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Fee San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended Fee Redwood City
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
The amount of two hundred seventy-five dollars ($275), together with the subpoena, shall be tendered to the person accepting the subpoena for each day that the peace officer, firefighter, state employee, trial court
employee, or specified county employee is required to remain in attendance pursuant to the subpoena.
(c) If the actual expenses should later prove to be less than the amount tendered, the excess of the amount tendered shall be refunded.
In no event shall a person's liability under this article for the expense of an emergency response exceed twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) for a particular incident.
reasonable clerical costs incurred in locating and making the records available to be billed at the maximum rate of twenty-four dollars ($24) per hour per person, computed on the basis of six dollars ($6) per quarter hour
or fraction thereof; actual postage charges
the only fee for complying with the subpoena shall not exceed fifteen dollars ($15), plus the actual cost, if any, charged to the witness by a third person for retrieval and return of records held offsite by that third person. If
the records are retrieved from microfilm, the reasonable cost, as defined in paragraph (1), shall also apply.
Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL (web)_201608010934356772.pdf
Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule_WEB.pdf
Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents 03.15.17.pdf
Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Clerk, Page 60 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Agendas, Transcripts, Administrative Codes
CC1 Agendas: City Council Annually [8]
CC2 Successor Agency Annually
CC3 Oversight Board or any other legislative body Annually
CC4 Transcripts
Folio Rate [9]
Additional Copies Per Page [9]
Subpoena Processing Fees
CC5
Complying with each subpoena and delivering records
to attorney, attorney's representative, or deposition
officer
Per Hr/Per
Person [3]
CC6 Clerical costs incurred in locating and making records
available
Per Hr/Per
Person
CC7 Standard reproduction of documents 8 1/2 x 14 inches
or less Per Page [7,9]
CC8 Standard reproduction of larger size documents Per Page [9]
CC9 Daily cost for a non-public safety employee required to
remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoena Per Day
CC10 Daily cost for a public safety employee required to
remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoena Per Day
CC11 Daily cost for a custodian of records to appear to
describe records Per Day
Other Fees
CC13 Campaign Disclosure Statements (FPPC)Per Page [9]
CC14 Candidate Statements Deposit [4]
CC15
Candidates Election Manual
(for non-candidates, persons who fail to file
nomination papers, or withdraw candidacy)
Flat [9]
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.1
$ 112
No Comparison
$5,003 each
$ 24
$ 107
$ 0.10
$ 0.15
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
Palo Alto
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Clerk, Page 61 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
CC16 Duplication of Videotapes onto DVDs/CDs Flat
CC17 Preparing Proof of Residence Letters or Notarizing
Proof of Living Documents Flat
CC18 Postage Flat
CC19 Duplication of Council meeting audio file to CD Per CD
CC20 Copy of CD/DVD
External file Per CD
Non-existing file Per CD
City Clerk Meeting Per CD
City-Wide Reproduction of Printed Matter
CC21 Blueprinting:
Blue Line copies Per s.f.[9]
Sepia Line copies ($4 minimum)Per s.f.
CC22 Photocopying of all items not otherwise listed in this
Master Fee Schedule Per Page [5,9]
CC24 Published materials for which there is a stated cost.Flat [9]
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Complying with each subpoena and delivering records to attorney, attorney's representative,
the requested records, then the City's fee cannot exceed $15.
Proportionate share of actual cost imposed by San Mateo County Clerk / Elections Office. [De
Under the Public Records Act, the City may charge users for photocopying or duplicating reco
ten pages. Not more than ten pages per day per citizen may be waived under these circumsta
This fee does not include charges for time spent by City staff gathering City records under the
by a member of the public, which is not covered under the Public Records Act. Note that requ
constraints.
Per Public Records Act ($ .10 per page)
Agendas that are emailed have no charge.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost analysis
ten cents ($0.10) per page for standard reproduction of documents of a size 8 1/2 by 14 inche
APPENDIX B.1
Palo Alto
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
$ 11.00
No Comparison
$1.20- $18 each; $1.30 per
foot for rolls ($7.50
minimum)
2Xs Blueprint charges
No Comparison
No Comparison
$ 11.00
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Clerk, Page 62 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Clerk - User Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
The amount of two hundred seventy-five dollars ($275), together with the subpoena, shall be
employee, or specified county employee is required to remain in attendance pursuant to the
(c) If the actual expenses should later prove to be less than the amount tendered, the excess
In no event shall a person's liability under this article for the expense of an emergency respon
reasonable clerical costs incurred in locating and making the records available to be billed at
or fraction thereof; actual postage charges
the only fee for complying with the subpoena shall not exceed fifteen dollars ($15), plus the a
the records are retrieved from microfilm, the reasonable cost, as defined in paragraph (1), sh
Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL (web)_201608010934356772.pdf
Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule_WEB.pdf
Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents 03.15.17.pdf
Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
APPENDIX B.1
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 City Manager, Page 63 of 142
City of South San Francisco
City Manager - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
FEES
CM1 Film Permit Per Permit 400$ 542$ No Comparison No Comparison $200 plus staff time $1,000 deposit
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
[4]
Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
Schedule_WEB.pdf
[5]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[6]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[7]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Recommended Daly City
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 City Manager, Page 64 of 142
APPENDIX B.2
No Comparison
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Finance, Page 65 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Finance - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
F1 Business License Listing:
Master List Per List 50$ 9$ 32$
Monthly Update Per Update 20$ 9$ No Comparison
F2 Overdue Invoices ($10 minimum)Monthly [3,6]1% of Bill 1% of Bill No Comparison No Comparison $10 or 10%, whichever is No Comparison
F4 Returned Checks Due to Insufficient Funds Per Check [4]18$ 25$ No Comparison No Comparison $26; $36 for each 25$
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]One percent monthly beginning 60 days after the date on which the
bill was due.
[4]Per CA Civil Code; 1st NSF Check is limited to $25 fee; each
subsequent NSF check is limited to $35 fee
[5]For businesses located in South San Francisco
[6]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[7]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)_201608010934356772.pdf
[8]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
Schedule_WEB.pdf
[9]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[10]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[11]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Recommended Daly City Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
Fees for the Annual Budget, Comprehensive Annual Financial
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Finance, Page 66 of 142
APPENDIX B.3
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 67 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Planning Division
Public Hearing Cases
PL1 Planned Unit Development Deposit 2,000$ 9,308$ No Comparison 2,500 Actual cost of staff time and 6,216$
PL2 Precise Plan Deposit 1,250$ 9,308$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL3 Precise Plan Modification (Residential Only) Deposit 400$ 6,043$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison 1/2 X deposit for original
PL4 Conditional Use Permit:
Residential or Civic Use Per
Application 650$ 3,273$
All Others Per 1,000$ 4,244$
PL5 Conditional Use Permit Modification Flat [3]400$ 2,206$ No Comparison No Comparison $ 2,055 No Comparison
PL6 Temporary Use Permit Per Permit 200$ 1,557$ No Comparison 1,000 $280 - $790 613$
PL7 Minor Use Permit
Residential Per Permit 350$ 1,797$
All Others Per Permit 600$ 1,631$
PL8 Zoning Amendment (Text) Deposit 2,000$ 8,155$ No Comparison 5,000 Actual cost of staff time and
consultant time plus deposit 6,216$
PL9 Rezoning Map Deposit 2,000$ 8,155$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL10 Site Clearance/Zoning Verification Per
Verification 100$ 163$ No Comparison 210 No Comparison No Comparison
PL11 Specific Plan Deposit 2,000$ 19,926$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL12 Variance For each
variance 650$ 4,077$ No Comparison 800 $ 1,975 1,212$
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Daly City
No Comparison 2,830 $1,610 - $2,145 No Comparison
Proposed
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 68 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Proposed
PL13 General Plan Amendments Deposit 2,000$ 9,305$ No Comparison 5,000 Actual cost of staff time and
consultant time plus deposit 6,261$
PL14 Master Plan Deposit 2,000$ 19,760$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL16 Development Agreement Deposit 2,000$ 17,419$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison $9,832 plus consultant cost
PL17 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to the City
Council by:
Applicant Flat
Adjacent Property Owner Flat
City Resident Flat 1,631$
Homeowners Association Flat
All Others Flat
PL18 Appeal of the Chief Planner's decision to the Planning
Commission by any party Per Appeal 200$ 815$ No Comparison 270 No Comparison No Comparison
PL19 Time Extension-Non-Conforming Use Per
Extension 50$ 815$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL20
Time Extension for a Use Permit, Planned Unit
Development Permit, Non-Conforming Status Permit, and
for all Other Permits and Maps
Per
Extension 200$ 815$ 1/2 permit fee No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL21 Transportation Demand Management Plan:
Initial Filing Fee Deposit 200$ 1,142$
Annual Monitoring Deposit $150 plus surve
costs $ 1,631
Tri-annual Deposit [4] $500 plus survey
costs $ 1,631
PL22 Modifications & Waivers
Minor (Staff Review) Flat 100$ 245$
Major (Planning Commission Review) Deposit 100$ 1,631$
PL23 Design Review - Signs:
Type A (up to 25 sq..) Per
Application 150$ 163$
Type B (up to 100 sq..) Per
Application 300$ 815$
400$ No Comparison 270$ $ 510 500$
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
$387.45 hardship waiver for
disabled access
requirements-BLDG
No Comparison No Comparison $ 205 1,221$
$0.10 -$0.062 per sqft No Comparison $ 925
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 69 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Proposed
Type C / Master Sign Per
Application 800$ 1,631$
PL24 Design Review - Single Family Residential Per
Application 300$ 2,291$ No Comparison No Comparison $ 188 2,306$
PL25 Design Review - Multi-Family Residential / Subdivisions 4
or More Units
Per
Application 600$ 827$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL26 Design Review - Modifications / Additions to 4 or More
Units Deposit 600$ 827$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL27 Design Review - New or Additions to 2 or 3 Units Per
Application 400$ 2,291$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PL28 Design Review - Commercial and Industrial Per
Application 700$ 2,458$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
$2,754 plus plan processing
over 10.00 sq. ft./over 6
units
PL29 Design Review - Projects Requiring Planning Commission
Approval Deposit 1,000$ 1,402$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison 14,881$
PL30 Design Review - Resubmitted (after 2 reviews by Design
Review Board) Flat Original Filing
Fee $ 2,372 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison NO Comparison
PL31 Environmental Document Fees - Categorical Exemption Flat 20$ 163$ No Comparison 1,097 Actual Cost - Deposit
Required 116$
PL32
Environmental Document Fees - Initial Study, Negative
Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration and other
Contract Planning Studies
Deposit [4]500$ 4,893$ No Comparison 2,266 Actual Cost - Deposit
Required $2,754 plus consultant cost
PL33 Environmental Document Fees - Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) Deposit [5]1,000$ 9,876$ No Comparison 3,128 Actual Costs plus deposit 1,000$
PL34 Subdivisions - Tentative Subdivision Map Flat 800$ 815$ No Comparison 5,000 Actual Costs plus deposit 917$
Per Lot Per Unit 25$ -$ No Comparison
$2,754 plus plan processing
over 10.00 sq. ft./over 6
units
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 70 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Proposed
PL35 Subdivisions - Tentative Parcel Map Flat 800$ 163$ No Comparison 2,500 Actual Costs plus deposit 765$
Per Lot Per Unit 25$ -$ No Comparison
PL37 Documents, Maps and Plans - Reproduction of
Documents and Maps Per Page 0$
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
12$ 2 Actual Costs plus deposit 20$
Miscellaneous Fees
PL39 Minor Changes to Approved Permit Flat -$ 163$ .65 of permit $ 925
PL40 Permit Program Maintenance Fee Per Building
Permit 25$ 25$ No Comparison No Comparison
PL42 Inspection Fees: Additional visits
Per
Inspection
Per
Application
50$ 326$ $150 per hour 125/hr
PL43 Certificate of Alteration Each 250$ 1,631$ No Comparison
PL44 General Plan Maintenance Fee 0.15% of
valuation
0.15% of
valuation .005 x valuation 10% of building permit fee
for new construction
PL45 Cultural Arts Contribution/Unit Landscaping Cost Per sq. ft. [6]8$ -$ 1,000 No Comparison
PL46 City Attorney Cost Recovery Fee Deposit [12]2,000$ -$ No Comparison No Comparison
PL48 Economic & Community Development Parking Exemption Each 650$ 1,631$ No Comparison 1180 -1395
PL49 Economic & Community Development Parking District
Annexation Fee Deposit 1,000$ 8,155$ No Comparison No Comparison
PL50 Legal Notices, other than Zoning or General Plan
Amendments Deposit 300$ 489$ No Comparison No Comparison
PL51 Legal Notices for Zoning and General Plan Amendments Deposit 800$ 489$ No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparisons
No Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 71 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Proposed
PL52 Duplication of Planning Commission Meeting Per Copy 20$
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule No Comparison
$ 20
PL53 Zoning Verification Letter Flat 100$ 815$ 400$ 210 $ 400
PL54 Zoning Administrator Decision Flat 100$ 815$ No Comparison
PL55 Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (taxi) Flat 1,000$ 163$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparisons
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 72 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Proposed
PL56 Sidewalk Dining Permit (Annual) Flat 200$ 489$ 270
[Notes]
[1] Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee
Schedule"
[2] Time estimates sourced from ""
[3] The greater of 1/2 the Conditional Use Permit fee or
$400 for each modification
[4] Consultant costs, plus 15% or $500, whichever is greater.
[5] Consultant costs, plus 15% or $1,000, whichever is
greater.
[6] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included
in cost analysis
[7]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)_201608010934356772.pdf
[8]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
Schedule_WEB.pdf
[9]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-
16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[10]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web
Documents 03.15.17.pdf
[11]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED
03.15.17.pdf
[12]
SSF Current Fee: Actual cost with $2,000 deposit; $5,000
deposit for projects requiring EIR's, Development
Agreements, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and/or GPA.
(Initial Deposit - any additional costs are required to be
reimbursed by the applicant)
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 73 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Planning Division
Public Hearing Cases
PL1 Planned Unit Development Deposit
PL2 Precise Plan Deposit
PL3 Precise Plan Modification (Residential Only) Deposit
PL4 Conditional Use Permit:
Residential or Civic Use Per
Application
All Others Per
PL5 Conditional Use Permit Modification Flat [3]
PL6 Temporary Use Permit Per Permit
PL7 Minor Use Permit
Residential Per Permit
All Others Per Permit
PL8 Zoning Amendment (Text) Deposit
PL9 Rezoning Map Deposit
PL10 Site Clearance/Zoning Verification Per
Verification
PL11 Specific Plan Deposit
PL12 Variance For each
variance
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.4
No Comparison
$3,000 deposit
No Comparison
$4,650 - $4,914 plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$674 plus any other
applicable Other Application
fees
$1,500 - $7,341 deposit
No Comparison
No Comparison
$3,371 deposit
4,823$
Palo Alto
$4,650 - $4,914 deposit
674$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 74 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
PL13 General Plan Amendments Deposit
PL14 Master Plan Deposit
PL16 Development Agreement Deposit
PL17 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to the City
Council by:
Applicant Flat
Adjacent Property Owner Flat
City Resident Flat
Homeowners Association Flat
All Others Flat
PL18 Appeal of the Chief Planner's decision to the Planning
Commission by any party Per Appeal
PL19 Time Extension-Non-Conforming Use Per
Extension
PL20
Time Extension for a Use Permit, Planned Unit
Development Permit, Non-Conforming Status Permit, and
for all Other Permits and Maps
Per
Extension
PL21 Transportation Demand Management Plan:
Initial Filing Fee Deposit
Annual Monitoring Deposit
Tri-annual Deposit [4]
PL22 Modifications & Waivers
Minor (Staff Review) Flat
Major (Planning Commission Review) Deposit
PL23 Design Review - Signs:
Type A (up to 25 sq..) Per
Application
Type B (up to 100 sq..) Per
Application
APPENDIX B.4
Palo Alto
5,003$
$2,112 - $4,982 deposit
7,058$
136$
No Comparison
No Comparison
$3,000 deposit
No Comparison
No Comparison
$2,261 - $2,653
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 75 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
Type C / Master Sign Per
Application
PL24 Design Review - Single Family Residential Per
Application
PL25 Design Review - Multi-Family Residential / Subdivisions 4
or More Units
Per
Application
PL26 Design Review - Modifications / Additions to 4 or More
Units Deposit
PL27 Design Review - New or Additions to 2 or 3 Units Per
Application
PL28 Design Review - Commercial and Industrial Per
Application
PL29 Design Review - Projects Requiring Planning Commission
Approval Deposit
PL30 Design Review - Resubmitted (after 2 reviews by Design
Review Board) Flat
PL31 Environmental Document Fees - Categorical Exemption Flat
PL32
Environmental Document Fees - Initial Study, Negative
Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration and other
Contract Planning Studies
Deposit [4]
PL33 Environmental Document Fees - Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) Deposit [5]
PL34 Subdivisions - Tentative Subdivision Map Flat
Per Lot Per Unit
APPENDIX B.4
Palo Alto
400$
Actual costs plus 25%
contract administration and
applicable fees
$3,671 deposit
$8,622 deposit
No Comparison
$3,371 - $10,264 deposit
$3,371 - $10,264 deposit
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 76 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
PL35 Subdivisions - Tentative Parcel Map Flat
Per Lot Per Unit
PL37 Documents, Maps and Plans - Reproduction of
Documents and Maps Per Page
Miscellaneous Fees
PL39 Minor Changes to Approved Permit Flat
PL40 Permit Program Maintenance Fee Per Building
Permit
PL42 Inspection Fees: Additional visits
Per
Inspection
Per
Application
PL43 Certificate of Alteration Each
PL44 General Plan Maintenance Fee
PL45 Cultural Arts Contribution/Unit Landscaping Cost Per sq. ft. [6]
PL46 City Attorney Cost Recovery Fee Deposit [12]
PL48 Economic & Community Development Parking Exemption Each
PL49 Economic & Community Development Parking District
Annexation Fee Deposit
PL50 Legal Notices, other than Zoning or General Plan
Amendments Deposit
PL51 Legal Notices for Zoning and General Plan Amendments Deposit
APPENDIX B.4
Palo Alto
No Comparison
$28 - $102
$2,320 Deposit
$0.55 per $1,00 of
construction valuation
No Comparison
No Comparison
$0.55 per $1,00 of
construction valuation
$611 deposit
$100 Deposit
$100 Deposit
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 77 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
PL52 Duplication of Planning Commission Meeting Per Copy
PL53 Zoning Verification Letter Flat
PL54 Zoning Administrator Decision Flat
PL55 Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (taxi) Flat
APPENDIX B.4
Palo Alto
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 ECD-Planning, Page 78 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development -Planning - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee
No. Fee Description Fee Unit
N
o
t
e
s
PL56 Sidewalk Dining Permit (Annual) Flat
[Notes]
[1] Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee
Schedule"
[2] Time estimates sourced from ""
[3] The greater of 1/2 the Conditional Use Permit fee or
$400 for each modification
[4] Consultant costs, plus 15% or $500, whichever is greater.
[5] Consultant costs, plus 15% or $1,000, whichever is
greater.
[6] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included
in cost analysis
[7]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)_201608010934356772.pdf
[8]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
Schedule_WEB.pdf
[9]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-
16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[10]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web
Documents 03.15.17.pdf
[11]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED
03.15.17.pdf
[12]
SSF Current Fee: Actual cost with $2,000 deposit; $5,000
deposit for projects requiring EIR's, Development
Agreements, Specific Plan, Precise Plan and/or GPA.
(Initial Deposit - any additional costs are required to be
reimbursed by the applicant)
APPENDIX B.4
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 79 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Alarms, Animal Control, Fingerprinting
P1 Fingerprints
All individuals (City Employees excluded)Per Person [3] $ 20 $ 55 $30 each plus DOJ and FBI $ 15 $ 13 $ 54
Live Scan Fingerprinting $ 40 $ 70 No Comparison $47 (plus $17 FBI charge if Actual Cost est. by DOJ plus No Comparison
Permits
P2 Alarm Registration (Commercial)
New/ Renewal Flat $ 25 $ 25 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
P3 False Alarm Fines [4]
3rd thru 5th alarm Per alarm $ 50 $ 100 $100 - $125
6th thru 8th alarm Per alarm $ 100 $ 200 $ 150
9th, 10th, etc…alarm Per alarm $ 250 $ 500 $ 150
False Alarm Response (average)
P4 False Alarm Fine Appeal Per appeal $ 25 $ 55 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison $500 Code Enforcement
P5 Bingo Per Permit [9] $ 100 $ 55
Initial Permit (Refundable if denied)Flat $ 50 $ 55
Annual Renewal Per Renewal $ 100 $ 510
P6 Card room I.D. Card:
Initial Operator Permit Flat $ 750 $ 1,705
Initial Employee Permit Flat $ 125 $ 340
Annual Renewal (for operator & employee
permit)Flat $ 10 $ 85 $ 10
Replacement Flat $ 25 $ 85 $ 26
P7 Cab Company Per individual $ 100 $ 55 $ 127 $ 98
Driver Renewal Permit Flat $ 65 $ 55 $ 50 $ 98
P8 Vehicles for Hire:
Initial Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Per individual $ 100 $ 6,830
Certificate of Renewal Per Driver $ 65 $ 170
P9 Special Event Permit Flat $ 250 $ 85
Non-Profit Group / Charity Event Flat $ 175 $ 85
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
$ 100 No Comparison $ 104
Daly City
No Comparison No Comparison $100 -$250 City Clerk Cost No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison
$1,188 deposit, plust staff
time plus livescan
No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison $ 61 No Comparison No Comparison
$ 210 No Comparison $ 125 $100 - $230 plus actual
costs
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 80 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City
P10 Junk Collector Per individual $ 27 $ 85 No Comparison $ 61 No Comparison No Comparison
P11 Massage Establishment or Bath House:
Initial Permit Per individual $ 750 $ 1,705 $ 550
$498 plus actual time spent
x rate per hour as
appropriate
Annual Renewal Per individual $ 125 $ 170 No Comparison NO Comparison
[do we need to clarify description; non-
registered individual?]
P13 Pawnbroker/Secondhand Goods Background
Investigation:
Dealer Per Permit $ 750 $ 1,705 $61 (tax) $316 plus Livescan
Employee Per Permit $ 150 $ 340 $ 140
P14 Fortune Telling Per Permit $ 750 $ 1,705 No Comparison $61 (tax) No Comparison No Comparison
P15 Tow Vehicle Operator:
Initial Permit/ Annual Renewal Flat $ 125 $ 170 $ 254
Tow Vehicle Driver Permit (Five-Year)Per Driver $ 50 $ 170 No Comparison
P16 Renewal:
Tow Service Franchise Fee
1st year of Franchise Agreement Per Vehicle $ 40 $ 50
2nd year of Franchise Agreement Per Vehicle $ 45 $ 50
3rd year and beyond of Franchise
Agreement Per Vehicle $ 50 $ 50
Replacement of Lost, Stolen, or Mutilated
Permits Per Permit $ 25 $ 40
Reissued Permits Per Permit $ 25 $ 40
P17 Photographs - Digital Photographs on Disks Per Copy $ 25 $ 55 $ 15 No Comparison $40 plus processing costs $ 5
Miscellaneous Fees
P18 Vehicle Abatement Per Vehicle [5] $ 300 $ 340 No Comparison $ 15 $150 plus towin fees No Comparison
P19 Video Tape Per Copy $ 40 $ 50 $ 25 No Comparison $ 63 $ 26
P20 DVD Video Per Copy $ 40 $ 50 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison $ 12
P21 In Car/ Bodycam Video - DVD Per Copy $ 50 $ 100 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison $ 12
$ 400 No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 81 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 82 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City
P22 Cassette Tape Per Copy $ 10 $ 50 $ 15 No Comparison $75 plus processing $ 30
P23 CD - Audio Per Copy $ 25 $ 50 $ 15 No Comparison $ 25 $ 12
P24 Police Reports Per Page $ 0.25
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
No Comparison $ 1.00 $ 7.50 $5 - $10
P25 Special Personnel Services [6]
Security Personnel (Police Officer)
Staff Police Officer Per Hour $ 110 $86.75 - $108.44
Discounted Rate for SSFUSD Per Hour $ 90 No Comparison
P26 Transcripts
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
$ 60 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
P27 Emergency Response to Driving Under the Influce
(DUI) Accidents [7,8] Actual Wages +
50% overhead No Comparison No Comparison $650 - $1,080 $77 (max $1,000 per
incident)
Incident Response (includes Accident, Hazmat, DUI or
other incident)[7] Actual Wages +
50% overhead $650 - $1,042 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
P28 Towed Vehicle Release, Negligent Operator Per Vehicle $ 100 $ 85 $ 75 No Comparison $ 81
P29 Plan Check & Condition Formulation (Bldg)flat
Hourly direct
contract plan
check cost
Actual cost No Comparison Actual Cost $138 per hour
P30 Site Inspections Hourly
Hourly direct
contract plan
check cost
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
P31 Firearm Storage Administration Fee
Single Firearm Flat $ 150 $ 190 $ 94
Each Additional Weapon Flat $ 100 $ 25 $ 62
P32
new Ammunition Storage Administration Fee
Sworn Flat $ -
Non-Sworn Flat $ -
P33 Clearance Letter Flat $ 10 $ 25 $ 10 $ 26 $ 22
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 83 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City
P34 Hourly Rate:
Sworn $ -
Non-Sworn $ -
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]Up to three cards per individual.
[4]Resets every calendar year.
[5]On public roadway only.
[6]Hourly salary plus 40% for benefits plus 30% in administration
charges; 30-minute minimum
[7]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[8]DUI code section
[9]Penal code: SSFMC Ch. 6.32
[10]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)201608010934356772.pdf
[11]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
ScheduleWEB.pdf
[12]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[13]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[14]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 84 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Alarms, Animal Control, Fingerprinting
P1 Fingerprints
All individuals (City Employees excluded)Per Person [3]
Live Scan Fingerprinting
Permits
P2 Alarm Registration (Commercial)
New/ Renewal Flat
P3 False Alarm Fines [4]
3rd thru 5th alarm Per alarm
6th thru 8th alarm Per alarm
9th, 10th, etc…alarm Per alarm
False Alarm Response (average)
P4 False Alarm Fine Appeal Per appeal
P5 Bingo Per Permit [9]
Initial Permit (Refundable if denied)Flat
Annual Renewal Per Renewal
P6 Card room I.D. Card:
Initial Operator Permit Flat
Initial Employee Permit Flat
Annual Renewal (for operator & employee
permit)Flat
Replacement Flat
P7 Cab Company Per individual
Driver Renewal Permit Flat
P8 Vehicles for Hire:
Initial Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Per individual
Certificate of Renewal Per Driver
P9 Special Event Permit Flat
Non-Profit Group / Charity Event Flat
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.6
$56 DOJ FP and rilling fee;
No Comparions
$ 40
$108 -$216
NO Compariosn
$59 for establishment per
year
$83 for new employee
$ 62
$ 26
$ 26
$ 2,400
$ 1,013
Palo Alto
$ 216
No Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 85 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
P10 Junk Collector Per individual
P11 Massage Establishment or Bath House:
Initial Permit Per individual
Annual Renewal Per individual
[do we need to clarify description; non-
registered individual?]
P13 Pawnbroker/Secondhand Goods Background
Investigation:
Dealer Per Permit
Employee Per Permit
P14 Fortune Telling Per Permit
P15 Tow Vehicle Operator:
Initial Permit/ Annual Renewal Flat
Tow Vehicle Driver Permit (Five-Year)Per Driver
P16 Renewal:
Tow Service Franchise Fee
1st year of Franchise Agreement Per Vehicle
2nd year of Franchise Agreement Per Vehicle
3rd year and beyond of Franchise
Agreement Per Vehicle
Replacement of Lost, Stolen, or Mutilated
Permits Per Permit
Reissued Permits Per Permit
P17 Photographs - Digital Photographs on Disks Per Copy
Miscellaneous Fees
P18 Vehicle Abatement Per Vehicle [5]
P19 Video Tape Per Copy
P20 DVD Video Per Copy
P21 In Car/ Bodycam Video - DVD Per Copy
APPENDIX B.6
Palo Alto
$179*JUNK YRAD permit
$ 158
$ 106
$ 171
$ 171
No Comparison
No Comparison
$135 *Impound charge
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 86 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.6
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 87 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
P22 Cassette Tape Per Copy
P23 CD - Audio Per Copy
P24 Police Reports Per Page
P25 Special Personnel Services [6]
Security Personnel (Police Officer)
Staff Police Officer Per Hour
Discounted Rate for SSFUSD Per Hour
P26 Transcripts
P27 Emergency Response to Driving Under the Influce
(DUI) Accidents [7,8]
Incident Response (includes Accident, Hazmat, DUI or
other incident)[7]
P28 Towed Vehicle Release, Negligent Operator Per Vehicle
P29 Plan Check & Condition Formulation (Bldg)flat
P30 Site Inspections Hourly
P31 Firearm Storage Administration Fee
Single Firearm Flat
Each Additional Weapon Flat
P32
new Ammunition Storage Administration Fee
Sworn Flat
Non-Sworn Flat
P33 Clearance Letter Flat
APPENDIX B.6
Palo Alto
$ 13.00
$108 - $ 144
No Comparison
No Comparison
$54 - $12,000
up to $1,2128 *Fire
NO Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
$ 23
NO Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Police, Page 88 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Police - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
P34 Hourly Rate:
Sworn
Non-Sworn
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]Up to three cards per individual.
[4]Resets every calendar year.
[5]On public roadway only.
[6]Hourly salary plus 40% for benefits plus 30% in administration
charges; 30-minute minimum
[7]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[8]DUI code section
[9]Penal code: SSFMC Ch. 6.32
[10]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)201608010934356772.pdf
[11]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
ScheduleWEB.pdf
[12]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[13]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[14]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
APPENDIX B.6
Palo Alto
$40-$155
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 89 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fire Service EMS Training
F9 First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Residents (cost of Per person 15$ 15$ 35$
F10 First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Non-Residents Per person 100$ 100$
F11 First-Aid / CPR Classes for SSF Businesses Per person 55$ 55$
F12 Heartsaver® CPR/AED Per person 50$ 50$
F13 Pediatric Education for Pre-hospital Professionals Per person 120$ 120$
F14 American Heart Association "Professional Level"
courses for the public and other outside agencies
ACLS Knowledge and Skills Review Workshops Per person 175$ 175$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
F15 Initial Recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per person 235$ 235$
Advance Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per person 235$ 235$
Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS-
HCP)Per person 75$ 75$
F16 Re-recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per person 190$ 190$
Advance Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per person 190$ 190$
Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS-
HCP)Per person 50$ 50$
F17 Lead EKG Class Per person 200$ 200$
F18 Geriatric Education for Emergency Medical Services Per person 190$ 190$
F19 Infrequent Paramedic Skills Per person 80$ 80$
F20 Other EMS Continuing Education Classes Per Hour Per
Person 8$ 8$
F21 Student Materials, Supplies, etc. Required to
Participate
Actual Cost plus
%24 to cover
cost, state sales
tax and shipping
Actual Cost plus
%24 to cover
cost, state sales
tax and shipping
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
No Comparison No Comparison No ComparisonNo Comparison
Daly City
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Recommended
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 90 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F22 Certification Fees required by Certifying Authority Flat 5$ 5$ No Comparison 5$ No Comparison $1.50 *City Clerk
Fire Training Division
F23 Emergency Response Team Class Per Hour Per
Person 10$ 28$
F24 Permit Required Confined Space Class Per Hour Per
Person 10$ 28$
F25 Hazardous Materials Responder Class Per Hour Per
Person 10$ 28$
F26 Technical Rescue Class Per Hour Per
Person 10$ 28$
F27 Vehicle Extrication Class Per Hour Per
Person 10$ 28$
F28 Other Fire Training Continuing Education Classes Per Hour Per
Person 8$ 28$
F29 Student Materials, Supplies, etc. Required to
Participate
Actual Cost plus
%24 to cover
cost, state sales
tax and shipping
Actual Cost plus
%24 to cover
cost, state sales
tax and shipping
F30 Certification Fees required by Certifying Authority Flat 5$ Actual Cost
Fire Prevention Division Permits and Fees
Fire Protective Systems Construction Permit
F32 Construction Without a Permit 2 Times cost of
Permit
2 Times cost of
Permit $ 294 No Comparison 2% of value ($594 min) 2 Times cost of Permit
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 91 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
Note: the below fee is for protective systems plan
check
F33
Fees for new residential and all commercial or
industrial buildings (Inspection - includes 2
inspections; minimum $125)
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
125.00$ 498$
$ 6,001 base fee @
$2,000 69.25$ 498$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 14.00$ 9$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 391.75$ 664$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 10.10$ 13$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 643.75$ 997$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 7.00$ 7$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 993.75$ 1,329$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 5.60$ 4$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 3,233.75$ 2,990$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 4.75$ 7$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 5,608.75$ 6,644$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 3.65$ 7$
No Comparison $167 per hour plus $25
processing fee $155 per hour $145 plus $0.0199 -$0.0318
per sqft
No Comparison $167 per hour plus $25
processing fee $155 per hour $145 plus $0.0199 -$0.0318
per sqft
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 92 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F108 Fire Plan Checking - Fire and Life Safety
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
50.00$ 166$
$ 6,001 base fee @
$2,000 27.70$ 166$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 5.60$ 9$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 156.70$ 332$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 4.04$ 13$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 257.50$ 664$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 2.80$ 40$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 397.50$ 2,658$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 2.24$ 10$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 1,293.50$ 6,644$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 1.90$ 7$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 2,243.50$ 10,630$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 1.46$ 11$
$587 plan review base rate
(all occupancies) plus $216
per hour
$167 per hour plus $25
processing fee $155 per hour 32% of base building permit
fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 93 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F109 Fire Plan Checking - Fire Protection Systems
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
81.25$ 166$
$ 6,001 base fee @
$2,000 45.01$ 166$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 9.10$ 9$
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000 254.64$ 332$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 6.57$ 3$
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 418.44$ 415$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 4.55$ 2$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 645.94$ 498$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 3.64$ 1$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 2,101.94$ 997$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 3.09$ 3$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 3,645.69$ 2,658$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 2.37$ 3$
F34 Construction Without a Permit Two Times Cost
of Permit
Two Times Cost
of Permit $ 294 No Comparison 2% of value ($594 min) Two Times Cost of Permit
Other Fire Prevention Inspections
F35 Annual Fire Inspection (Basic)Flat 125$ 249$ 212$ $167 per hour $60 - $1,500 145$
F36 Non-Construction Fire Re-inspection Fee Hourly 125$ 166$ No Comparison 84$ 155$ 471$
F37 Inspections Outside Normal Business Hours Hourly 125$ 166$ No Comparison No Comparison 155$ No Comparison
F38 Construction Re-inspection Fees Hourly 125$ 166$ No Comparison 84$ 155$ 471$
$280 - $775 per $3,000 s.f.
Fee varies based on system
criteria.
$167 per hour plus $25
processing fee $155 per hour 32% of base building permit
fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 94 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F39 Inspection for Which a Fee is not Specifically
Indicated Hourly 125$ 166$ No Comparison 167$ 155$ No Comparison
F40 Annual High-rise Building (2 Hr. Minimum)Hourly 125$ 166$ 190$ 167$ No Comparison $145 -$312 plus $26 - $31
per unit
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 95 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F41 New Occupancy / Business Flat 125$ 332$ 212$ 167$ $125/hour 154$
F43
Group R, Division 1 Occupancies; Including
Condominiums Classified as Group R, Division 3 with
3 or More Dwelling Units Per Building ($125
minimum charge)
0-10 Per living unit 10$ 249$
11-30 Per living unit 10$ 498$
31-50 Per living unit 10$ 830$
>50; each 50 Per living unit 10$ 1,329$
F45 Title 19, 5 Year Automatic Fire Sprinkler Certification Per System 125$ 332$ 101$ No Comparison $155 per hour No Comparison
F46 Pre-inspection of Residential Care Facilities Flat 50$ 332$ Free 25$ $155 per hour 262$
No Comparison $167 per hour No Comparison $145 plus .0199/sqft
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 96 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 97 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 98 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
Operational Permits
F49 Aerosol Products Flat 125$ 332$ No Comparison 160$
F50 Assemblies Flat 125$ 332$ 264$ 160$
F51 Automobile Wrecking Yard Flat 125$ 332$ No Comparison No Comparison 160$
F52 Battery Systems Per System 125$ 332$ No Comparison 160$
F53 Candles and Open Flames in Assembly Areas Per Assembly 125$ 166$ 101$ 160$
F54 Combustible Fiber Storage Flat 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F55 Combustible Material Storage Flat 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F56 Commercial Rubbish-handling Operation Flat 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F57 Compressed Gases Per System 125$ 166$ 101$ 160$
F58 Cryogens Per System 125$ 498$ 101$ 160$
F59 Dry Cleaning Plants Flat 125$ 498$ 101$ 160$
F60 Dust Producing Operations Flat 125$ 498$ 101$ 160$
F61 Fire Alarm Per Building 125$ 498$ $424 - $775 160$ $503 plus $34 per device
F62 Flammable of Combustible Liquids, Pipelines, Store,
Handle, or Use.Per Tank 125$ 498$ 280$ 160$
F63 Hazardous Materials Storage, Transport on Site,
Dispense, Use, or Handle Chemicals Per Building [3]125$ 664$ 280$ 160$
F64
Hazardous Materials in Excess by Classifications;
Store, Transport on Site, Dispense, Use, or Handle
Chemicals in Excess of Amounts Listed in Table 105-C
Per class of
chemical at
each location
125$ 332$ 280$ 160$
$167/hr plus $25
processing fee
399$
$167/hr plus $25
processing fee
$162 per hour of inspection
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 99 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F65 High-piled Storage Per Location 125$ 664$ 101$ 160$
F66 Institutions and Day Care Per Location 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F67 Large Family Day Care Per Location 125$ 332$ Free 160$
F68 Lumberyards Flat 125$ 664$ No Comparison 160$
F69 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Per Tank 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F70 Magnesium Working Flat 125$ 332$ No Comparison 160$
F71 Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Stations Per Location 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F72 Organic Coatings Flat 125$ 332$ No Comparison 160$
F73 Ovens, Industrial Baking or Drying Per Oven 125$ 166$ No Comparison 160$
F74 Permit-Required Confined Space Per Space 125$ 332$ No Comparison 160$
F75 Pyrotechnical Special Effects Material Flat 125$ 664$ No Comparison 359$ 160$
F76 Radioactive Materials Per Location 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F77 Refrigeration Equipment Per System 125$ 166$ 101$ 160$
F78 Residential Care and Residential Care for the Elderly Per Location 125$ 332$ Free 160$
F79 Repair Garages Flat 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F80 Spraying or Dipping Per Tank 125$ 332$ 101$ 160$
F81 Tire Storage Flat 125$ 498$ No Comparison 160$
F82 Wood Products Flat 125$ 332$ No Comparison 160$
$167/hr plus $25
processing fee $162 per hour of inspection
$167/hr plus $25
processing fee
$162 per hour of inspection
$167/hr plus @25
processing fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 100 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F83 Wielding and Cutting Operations Per Location 125$ 498$ 101$ 160$ $82 - $236
F84 Failure to Obtain a Permit Varies [5] Two Times
Permit Cost
Two Times
Permit Cost $ 294 2% of value ($594 min) Two Times Permit Cost
F86
Flammable or Combustible Liquids; Remove, Install,
Construct, Alter or Abandon an Underground or
Above Ground Tank
Per Tank 125$ 664$ 280$ 160$
F87
Hazardous Materials; Install, Repair, Abandon,
Remove, Place-Out-of-Service, Tanks or Piping, Close
or Substantially Modify a Storage Facility
Per Tank 125$ 664$ 280$ 160$
Special Activity Permits
F89 Candles or Open Flames in Assembly Areas Per Event 125$ 332$ 264$ 160$ $162 per hour of inspection
F90 Carnivals and Fairs Per Event 125$ 664$ 264$ 160$ 472$
F91 Christmas Tree Lots Per Event 125$ 664$ 264$ 160$
F92 Explosives or Blasting Agents Flat 125$ 664$ No Comparison 160$
F93 Fire Hydrants and Water-Control Valves Per Event 125$ 332$ No Comparison 160$
F95 Fireworks Displays by a Licensed Professional Per Event 125$ 664$ 264$ 750$ 1,572$
F96 Fumigation/Thermal Insecticide Per
Occurrence 125$ 166$ 264$ 160$ $162 per hour of inspection
F98 Parade Floats Per Event 125$ 332$ No Comparison 160$ $162 per hour of inspection
F99 Temporary Membrane Structures (tents)Per Structure 125$ 332$ 264$ 160$ 236$
F101 Failure to Obtain a Permit Varies [5] Two Times
Permit Cost
Two Times
Permit Cost $ 294 No Comparison 2% of value ($594 min) Double Fee
$167/hr plus $25
processing fee $162 per hour of inspection
$167/hr plus $25
processing fee
$167/hr plus @25
processing fee
$162 per hour of inspection
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 101 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Fees
F102 Hazard Mitigation Fee (Includes all other incident
types)[4,5] Actual Cost Actual Cost $ 280 No Comparison
F103 Minimum Fire Protection System Plan Check For <$6,000
valuation 125$ 166$ No Comparison No Comparison
F104 Application for Use of Alternate Methods of
Protection Per Request 250$ 250$ $180 per hour *Admin Fee $387.45 *Building
F105 Emergency Response DUI Cost Recovery [4,5] Actual Cost Actual Cost No Comparison $429 first hour plus $216
each add'l 1/2 hour
F106 Emergency Response Hazmat Cost Recovery [4,5] Actual Cost Actual Cost No Comparison No Comparison
F107 Investigations Hourly 125$ 166$ No Comparison 389$
F111 Additional Fire Plan Review (2 hr. minimum)Hourly 125$ 166$ 216$ 236$
F112 Fire Watch [4] Actual Cost Actual Cost No Comparison $155 per hour/pp No Comparison
F113 Key Box Service Per Location 50$ 83$ 75$ No Comparison 99$
F114 Preventable False Alarms
2nd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Flat [5]100$ 100$ 750$ No Comparison
3rd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Flat [5]200$ 200$ 1,000$ $175 - $550
4th and other additional alarms within 12
months of the 1st preventable alarm Flat [5]300$ 500$ 1,000$ $325 - $1,050
False Alarm Response (average)Flat [8]100$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
F117 Plan Digitizing Fee
5% of
building/fire
permit fee
$0.05 per
letter; $0.75
per plan; $0.05
per image
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Miscellaneous
F124 Reproduction of Printed Fire and Paramedic Reports Per Page [5]0.25$
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
10.00$ No Comparison No Comparison 0.19$
No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison
432$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 102 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F125
Administrative Code Enforcement Fee (for failure to
correct violations after receiving Courtesy Notice
from Fire Prevention Division 14 day grace period to
correct)
Flat 125$ 332$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 103 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City Recommended
F126 Hourly Rate:
Prevention $ - $ 166.00
Emergency Services - Engine Company (3
person) $ - $ 419.00
Emergency Services - Ambulance (2 person)-$ 280$
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]
For each location/building that contains 55 gallons or more of a
liquid, 500 pounds or more of a solid, or 200 cubic feet or more of a
compressed gas
[4]
The cost shall include the provision of scene supervision, overhead,
equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefit costs of the employees
that responded to the incident.
[5]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[6]DUI code section
[7]AMR/Kaiser Agreement
[8]For informational purpose only.
[9]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)_201608010934356772.pdf
[10]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
Schedule_WEB.pdf
[11]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[12]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[13]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 104 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fire Service EMS Training
F9 First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Residents (cost of Per person
F10 First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Non-Residents Per person
F11 First-Aid / CPR Classes for SSF Businesses Per person
F12 Heartsaver® CPR/AED Per person
F13 Pediatric Education for Pre-hospital Professionals Per person
F14 American Heart Association "Professional Level"
courses for the public and other outside agencies
ACLS Knowledge and Skills Review Workshops Per person
F15 Initial Recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per person
Advance Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per person
Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS-
HCP)Per person
F16 Re-recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per person
Advance Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per person
Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS-
HCP)Per person
F17 Lead EKG Class Per person
F18 Geriatric Education for Emergency Medical Services Per person
F19 Infrequent Paramedic Skills Per person
F20 Other EMS Continuing Education Classes Per Hour Per
Person
F21 Student Materials, Supplies, etc. Required to
Participate
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.7
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
Palo Alto
$58 half day; $116 full day
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 105 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F22 Certification Fees required by Certifying Authority Flat
Fire Training Division
F23 Emergency Response Team Class Per Hour Per
Person
F24 Permit Required Confined Space Class Per Hour Per
Person
F25 Hazardous Materials Responder Class Per Hour Per
Person
F26 Technical Rescue Class Per Hour Per
Person
F27 Vehicle Extrication Class Per Hour Per
Person
F28 Other Fire Training Continuing Education Classes Per Hour Per
Person
F29 Student Materials, Supplies, etc. Required to
Participate
F30 Certification Fees required by Certifying Authority Flat
Fire Prevention Division Permits and Fees
Fire Protective Systems Construction Permit
F32 Construction Without a Permit
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
$11 *City Clerk Certification
Fee
No Comparison
$11 *City Clerk Certification
Fee
$275 - $813
$58 per class, half-day;
$116 per day full-day per
class
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 106 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Note: the below fee is for protective systems plan
check
F33
Fees for new residential and all commercial or
industrial buildings (Inspection - includes 2
inspections; minimum $125)
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
$ 6,001 base fee @
$2,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
No Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 107 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F108 Fire Plan Checking - Fire and Life Safety
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
$ 6,001 base fee @
$2,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 108 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F109 Fire Plan Checking - Fire Protection Systems
$0 - $6,000
Minimum
base fee up to
$6,000
$ 6,001 base fee @
$2,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 25,001 base fee @
$25,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
F34 Construction Without a Permit
Other Fire Prevention Inspections
F35 Annual Fire Inspection (Basic)Flat
F36 Non-Construction Fire Re-inspection Fee Hourly
F37 Inspections Outside Normal Business Hours Hourly
F38 Construction Re-inspection Fees Hourly
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
$275 - $813
No Comparison
$323 plus %159 per hour
after 2hours
$660 min
$165 development services
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 109 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F39 Inspection for Which a Fee is not Specifically
Indicated Hourly
F40 Annual High-rise Building (2 Hr. Minimum)Hourly
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
No Comparison
$713 up too 4 hours; $159
for each additional hour
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 110 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F41 New Occupancy / Business Flat
F43
Group R, Division 1 Occupancies; Including
Condominiums Classified as Group R, Division 3 with
3 or More Dwelling Units Per Building ($125
minimum charge)
0-10 Per living unit
11-30 Per living unit
31-50 Per living unit
>50; each 50 Per living unit
F45 Title 19, 5 Year Automatic Fire Sprinkler Certification Per System
F46 Pre-inspection of Residential Care Facilities Flat
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
No Comparison
175$
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 111 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 112 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 113 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Operational Permits
F49 Aerosol Products Flat
F50 Assemblies Flat
F51 Automobile Wrecking Yard Flat
F52 Battery Systems Per System
F53 Candles and Open Flames in Assembly Areas Per Assembly
F54 Combustible Fiber Storage Flat
F55 Combustible Material Storage Flat
F56 Commercial Rubbish-handling Operation Flat
F57 Compressed Gases Per System
F58 Cryogens Per System
F59 Dry Cleaning Plants Flat
F60 Dust Producing Operations Flat
F61 Fire Alarm Per Building
F62 Flammable of Combustible Liquids, Pipelines, Store,
Handle, or Use.Per Tank
F63 Hazardous Materials Storage, Transport on Site,
Dispense, Use, or Handle Chemicals Per Building [3]
F64
Hazardous Materials in Excess by Classifications;
Store, Transport on Site, Dispense, Use, or Handle
Chemicals in Excess of Amounts Listed in Table 105-C
Per class of
chemical at
each location
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
102$
236$
179$
NO Comparison
142$
179$
139$
No Comparison
139$
139$
404$
126$
$356 plus $7.25 per nozzle
139$
NO Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 114 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F65 High-piled Storage Per Location
F66 Institutions and Day Care Per Location
F67 Large Family Day Care Per Location
F68 Lumberyards Flat
F69 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Per Tank
F70 Magnesium Working Flat
F71 Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Stations Per Location
F72 Organic Coatings Flat
F73 Ovens, Industrial Baking or Drying Per Oven
F74 Permit-Required Confined Space Per Space
F75 Pyrotechnical Special Effects Material Flat
F76 Radioactive Materials Per Location
F77 Refrigeration Equipment Per System
F78 Residential Care and Residential Care for the Elderly Per Location
F79 Repair Garages Flat
F80 Spraying or Dipping Per Tank
F81 Tire Storage Flat
F82 Wood Products Flat
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
102$
$73 -$140
$73 -$140
No Comparison
139$
103$
$88 -$103
175$
102$
148$
29$
139$
175$
175$
404$
175$
575$
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 115 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F83 Wielding and Cutting Operations Per Location
F84 Failure to Obtain a Permit Varies [5]
F86
Flammable or Combustible Liquids; Remove, Install,
Construct, Alter or Abandon an Underground or
Above Ground Tank
Per Tank
F87
Hazardous Materials; Install, Repair, Abandon,
Remove, Place-Out-of-Service, Tanks or Piping, Close
or Substantially Modify a Storage Facility
Per Tank
Special Activity Permits
F89 Candles or Open Flames in Assembly Areas Per Event
F90 Carnivals and Fairs Per Event
F91 Christmas Tree Lots Per Event
F92 Explosives or Blasting Agents Flat
F93 Fire Hydrants and Water-Control Valves Per Event
F95 Fireworks Displays by a Licensed Professional Per Event
F96 Fumigation/Thermal Insecticide Per
Occurrence
F98 Parade Floats Per Event
F99 Temporary Membrane Structures (tents)Per Structure
F101 Failure to Obtain a Permit Varies [5]
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
179$
$275 - $813
$102 - $139
$356 plus $159 per hour
over two hours
142$
179$
175$
102$
$261 plus $59 per valve
565$
139$
115$
290$
$275 - $813
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 116 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Fees
F102 Hazard Mitigation Fee (Includes all other incident
types)[4,5]
F103 Minimum Fire Protection System Plan Check For <$6,000
valuation
F104 Application for Use of Alternate Methods of
Protection Per Request
F105 Emergency Response DUI Cost Recovery [4,5]
F106 Emergency Response Hazmat Cost Recovery [4,5]
F107 Investigations Hourly
F111 Additional Fire Plan Review (2 hr. minimum)Hourly
F112 Fire Watch [4]
F113 Key Box Service Per Location
F114 Preventable False Alarms
2nd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Flat [5]
3rd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Flat [5]
4th and other additional alarms within 12
months of the 1st preventable alarm Flat [5]
False Alarm Response (average)Flat [8]
F117 Plan Digitizing Fee
Miscellaneous
F124 Reproduction of Printed Fire and Paramedic Reports Per Page [5]
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
No Comparison
163$
$365 plus $1.80 per head
$54 - $12,000
up to $1,212
163$
155$
$159 per hour
No Comparison
No Comparison
108$
162$
No Comparison
No Comparison
$40 per CD *General
Charge
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 117 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F125
Administrative Code Enforcement Fee (for failure to
correct violations after receiving Courtesy Notice
from Fire Prevention Division 14 day grace period to
correct)
Flat
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Fire, Page 118 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Fire - Fee Comparison Survey FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
F126 Hourly Rate:
Prevention
Emergency Services - Engine Company (3
person)
Emergency Services - Ambulance (2 person)
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]
For each location/building that contains 55 gallons or more of a
liquid, 500 pounds or more of a solid, or 200 cubic feet or more of a
compressed gas
[4]
The cost shall include the provision of scene supervision, overhead,
equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefit costs of the employees
that responded to the incident.
[5]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[6]DUI code section
[7]AMR/Kaiser Agreement
[8]For informational purpose only.
[9]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)_201608010934356772.pdf
[10]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
Schedule_WEB.pdf
[11]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[12]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[13]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
APPENDIX B.7
Palo Alto
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 119 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Engineering Division
Inspection and Encroachment
PW1 Improvement Plan Check - per sheet (covers 2 plan
Cost of Improvments Deposit amounts:
Up to $50,000 Minimum $ 300 575$ $160 - $1,760 minimum deposit $3,000
$ 50,001 base fee @ 1,000$ 863$ 1,760$ 5,200$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 6$ $ 32 $ 70
$ 100,001 base fee @ 2,000$ 1,150$ $ 3,360 $ 8,700
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 21$ $ 24 $ 48
$ 250,001 base fee @ 5,000$ 4,313$ $ 6,960 $ 15,900
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 6$ $ 24 $ 42
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 10,000$ 5,751$ $ 12,960 $ 26,300
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 12$ $ 16 $ 30
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 20,000$ 11,501$ $ 20,960 $ 41,200
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 12$ $ 16 $ 22
Daly City Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
Staff time charged at the
current hourly rate and/or
reimbursement of third
party costs (deposit may be
required for large or
complex work)
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 120 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Daly City Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
PW1 Improvement Inspection (covers 2 inspections)
Cost of Improvments
Up to $50,000
Minimum
base fee up
to $50,000
$ 300 431$ $320 - $3,520
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000 1,000$ 431$ 3,520$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 4$ 64$
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000 2,000$ 647$ 6,720$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 1$ 48$
$ 250,001 base fee @
$250,000 5,000$ 863$ 10,320$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 2$ 48$
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000 10,000$ 1,438$ 25,920$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 3$ 32$
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000 20,000$ 2,875$ 29,520$
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000 20$ 3$ 32$
PW2 Encroachment Permit Inspection Fee (covers two
inpections)[15]200$ 307$ $560 - $720 800.00$ $296 - $354
Additional Visits Beyond Two Per Visit 100$ 144$ No Comparison No Comparison $138 per hour
Miscellaneous Processing Fee
PW4 On-site inspection/processing fee for the recordation
of the condition of the private sewer lateral.
Per
Recordation 150$ -$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PW5
Off-site inspection/processing fee for the recordation
of the condition of the private sewer lateral. (DVD
Review)
Per
Recordation 75$ 72$ $180 per hour No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Subdivision Maps
822$
Included above
Staff time charged at the
current hourly rate and/or
reimbursement of third
party costs (deposit may be
required for large or
complex work)
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 121 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Daly City Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
PW6 Inspection Deposit Deposit [7]
2% of public
improvement
costs
2% of public
improvement
costs
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PW7 Major Subdivision Tentative Map Flat 500$ 307$ No Comparison 5,000$ Actual Costs No Comparison
Per Lot Per Unit 25$ 24$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PW8 Final Map Filing Fee Flat 1,000$ 307$ No Comparison No Comparison 109$ No Comparison
Per Lot Per Unit 25$ 24$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
PW9 Minor Subdivision Tentative Map Flat 500$ 144$ No Comparison 5,000$ Actual Costs No Comparison
Per Lot Per Unit 25$ 24$
PW10 Parcel Map Filing Fee Per Map 500$ 288$ No Comparison No Comparison 109$ No Comparison
PW11 Lot Line Adjustment Per
Adjustment 400$ 307$ No Comparison 5,000$ $1,050 plus cost of contract
engineer 1,500$
PW12 After-hours Site Inspections [3,7]Actual Cost Actual Cost $160 per hour No Comparison $155 *Fire No Comparison
PW14 Easement Abandonment Request Per
easement 400$ 3,594$ No Comparison 3,000$ 296$ $120; $2,000 deposit
PW15 Subdivision and Parcel Map Plan Check (includes
Coordination and administartion costs)Deposit [3]Actual Cost 1,026$ No Comparison $3,000 min deposit Actual $2,209 deposit
PW16 Transportation - Single trip, or a modification of an
original permit Flat [8]16$ 16$ No Comparison No Comparison 16$ No Comparison
PW17 Transportation - Annual or repetitive permit Flat [8]75$ 90$ No Comparison No Comparison 90$ No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 122 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Daly City Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
Miscellaneous Fees
PW22 Grading Plan Check and Permit Processing (Cubic
Yards)
50 Cubic Yards or Less Flat -$ 288$
51 to 100 Cubic Yards Flat 100$ 575$
101 to 1,000 Cubic Yards Flat 150$ 575$
1,001 to 10,000 Cubic Yards Flat 200$ 1,150$ 880$ 5,700$
10,001 Base Fee @
10,000 200$ 1,438$ 2,320$ 8,400$
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
100$ 8$ 640$ 2,500$
100,001 Base Fee @
10,000 1,100$ 1,510$ 8,080$ 30,900$
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
60$ 7$ 480$ 2,500$
200,001 Base Fee @
100,000 1,700$ 1,581$ 9,040$ 55,900$
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
30$ 79$ 480$ 2,500$
PW23
Other plan checking and additional plan reviews
required by changes, additions, or revisions to
approved plans.
[3]Actual Cost 288$ No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
160$
No Comparison No Comparison
2,500$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 123 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Daly City Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
PW24 Grading Inspection Fees (Cubic Yards)
50 Cubic Yards or Less Flat 20$ 288$ 349$
51 to 100 Cubic Yards Flat 30$ 288$ 696$
101 Base Fee @
100 30$ 288$ 12,491$
each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
100 cubic
yards
14$ 431$ No Comparison
1,001 Base Fee @
1,000 156$ 431$ 18,739$
each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
1,000 cubic
yards
12$ 16$ No Comparison
10,001 Base Fee @
10,000 264$ 575$ actual cost w/force account
minimumn $10,000
each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
54$ 29$ No Comparison
100,001 Base Fee @
100,000 750$ 863$ actual cost w/force account
minimumn $10,000
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
100,000
cubic yards
30$ 43$ No Comparison
Other Inspections
PW25 Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours Hourly [4,7]Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost $97.80 (2 hour min) *
Building Div
PW26 Re-inspection Assessed Under Provisions of Section
305(h)Flat [5]Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost $97.80 *Building Div.
PW27 Inspections for which a fee is not specifically
indicated Hourly [5,7]Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost $97.80 *Building Div.
Water Quality Control Division
Pretreatment Fee Schedule
PW28 Permits and Renewals: (valid for 3 year time
intervals)
Significant Industrial Users Every 3
years [6]450$ 575$
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 124 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Daly City Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
All Other Required Businesses Every 3
years 120$ 144$
PW31 Inspections - Outside of Normal Pretreatment
Activities Per Hour 75$ 144$ 150$ No Comparison No Comparison $120- $180
PW32 Inspections - Outside of Normal Business Hours Per Hour 90$ 144$ 180$ No Comparison No Comparison $120- $180
PW33 Special Monitoring Activites for Enforcement and
Surveillance Per Hour 75$ 144$ No Comparison 500$ No Comparison No Comparison
PW34 Special Sampling/Equipment Use Per Hour 150$ 144$ No Comparison 500$ No Comparison $120- $180
PW35 Wastewater Analysis
BOD Per Test 80$ Actual Cost No Comparison
COD Per Test 55$ Actual Cost $0.51 per pound
TSS Per Test 40$ Actual Cost
Oil & Grease Per Test 95$ Actual Cost
Metals (except Hg)Per Test 30$ Actual Cost
Hg Per Test 80$ Actual Cost
pH Per Test 20$ Actual Cost
Bioassay Per Test 450$ Actual Cost
CN Per Test 135$ Actual Cost
PAH Per Test 300$ Actual Cost
Phenol Per Test 105$ Actual Cost
Ammonia Per Test 40$ Actual Cost
Conductivity Per Test 40$ Actual Cost
Oxygen Uptake Rate Per Test 150$ Actual Cost
Others
To Be
Determined by
Plant
Superintendent
Actual Cost
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]Hourly salary, plus 40% in benefits and another 30% in
administrative costs; 1/2 hour minimum
[4]
Hourly salary, plus 50% overtime rate, plus 50% for benefits on base
rate, plus 12% in administrative charges. Three-hour minimum.
[5]Hourly salary, plus 50% for benefits on base rate, plus 12% in
administrative charges. One half-hour minimum.
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 125 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Daly City Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
[6]Defined in federal regulations and municipal ordinance.
[7]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[8]Maximum per State law ($16/ $90)
[10]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)201608010934356772.pdf
[11]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
ScheduleWEB.pdf
[12]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[13]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[14]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
[15]SSF Current Fee: Minimum includes 2 site visits for projects valued
over $1,000.00.
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 126 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Engineering Division
Inspection and Encroachment
PW1 Improvement Plan Check - per sheet (covers 2 plan
Cost of Improvments
Up to $50,000 Minimum
$ 50,001 base fee @
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 100,001 base fee @
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 250,001 base fee @
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.8
Palo Alto
$1,235 deposit
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 127 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
PW1 Improvement Inspection (covers 2 inspections)
Cost of Improvments
Up to $50,000
Minimum
base fee up
to $50,000
$ 50,001 base fee @
$50,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 250,001 base fee @
$250,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,000
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1,000
PW2 Encroachment Permit Inspection Fee (covers two
inpections)[15]
Additional Visits Beyond Two Per Visit
Miscellaneous Processing Fee
PW4 On-site inspection/processing fee for the recordation
of the condition of the private sewer lateral.
Per
Recordation
PW5
Off-site inspection/processing fee for the recordation
of the condition of the private sewer lateral. (DVD
Review)
Per
Recordation
Subdivision Maps
APPENDIX B.8
Palo Alto
No Comparison
No Comparison
$210 - $1,496
A. Construction in Public
Right-of-Way ($1.00 -
$5,999) - $503 per
occurrence; B. Construction
in Public Right-of-Way
($6,000 - $25,999) - $503 +
6.2% of value greater than
$6,000; C. Construction in
Public Right-of-Way
($26,000 - $100,999) - $1743
+ 7.5% of value greater than
Construction in Public Right-
of-Way ($101,000 +) -
$7368.00 + 6.4% of value
greater than $100,000.00
Note: Including public or
private subdivision streets
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 128 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
PW6 Inspection Deposit Deposit [7]
PW7 Major Subdivision Tentative Map Flat
Per Lot Per Unit
PW8 Final Map Filing Fee Flat
Per Lot Per Unit
PW9 Minor Subdivision Tentative Map Flat
Per Lot Per Unit
PW10 Parcel Map Filing Fee Per Map
PW11 Lot Line Adjustment Per
Adjustment
PW12 After-hours Site Inspections [3,7]
PW14 Easement Abandonment Request Per
easement
PW15 Subdivision and Parcel Map Plan Check (includes
Coordination and administartion costs)Deposit [3]
PW16 Transportation - Single trip, or a modification of an
original permit Flat [8]
PW17 Transportation - Annual or repetitive permit Flat [8]
APPENDIX B.8
Palo Alto
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
$230 per hour
$1,732 - $3,729
12% of building permit
No Comparison
No Comparison
$8, 622 deposit *Planning
$25 *City Clerk
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 129 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Miscellaneous Fees
PW22 Grading Plan Check and Permit Processing (Cubic
Yards)
50 Cubic Yards or Less Flat
51 to 100 Cubic Yards Flat
101 to 1,000 Cubic Yards Flat
1,001 to 10,000 Cubic Yards Flat
10,001 Base Fee @
10,000
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
100,001 Base Fee @
10,000
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
200,001 Base Fee @
100,000
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
PW23
Other plan checking and additional plan reviews
required by changes, additions, or revisions to
approved plans.
[3]
APPENDIX B.8
Palo Alto
$139 - $1,390
$1,390 - $2,551
2,680$
517$
7,850$
517$
13,020$
517$
No Comparison
139$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 130 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
PW24 Grading Inspection Fees (Cubic Yards)
50 Cubic Yards or Less Flat
51 to 100 Cubic Yards Flat
101 Base Fee @
100
each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
100 cubic
yards
1,001 Base Fee @
1,000
each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
1,000 cubic
yards
10,001 Base Fee @
10,000
each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
10,000 cubic
yards
100,001 Base Fee @
100,000
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
each add'l
100,000
cubic yards
Other Inspections
PW25 Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours Hourly [4,7]
PW26 Re-inspection Assessed Under Provisions of Section
305(h)Flat [5]
PW27 Inspections for which a fee is not specifically
indicated Hourly [5,7]
Water Quality Control Division
Pretreatment Fee Schedule
PW28 Permits and Renewals: (valid for 3 year time
intervals)
Significant Industrial Users Every 3
years [6]
APPENDIX B.8
Palo Alto
139$
139$
139$
139$
1,390$
129$
2,680$
517$
7,850$
517$
$202 per 1.5Xs OT hour;
$226 per 2Xs OT hour
No Comparison
163$
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 131 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
All Other Required Businesses Every 3
years
PW31 Inspections - Outside of Normal Pretreatment
Activities Per Hour
PW32 Inspections - Outside of Normal Business Hours Per Hour
PW33 Special Monitoring Activites for Enforcement and
Surveillance Per Hour
PW34 Special Sampling/Equipment Use Per Hour
PW35 Wastewater Analysis
BOD Per Test
COD Per Test
TSS Per Test
Oil & Grease Per Test
Metals (except Hg)Per Test
Hg Per Test
pH Per Test
Bioassay Per Test
CN Per Test
PAH Per Test
Phenol Per Test
Ammonia Per Test
Conductivity Per Test
Oxygen Uptake Rate Per Test
Others
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]Hourly salary, plus 40% in benefits and another 30% in
administrative costs; 1/2 hour minimum
[4]
Hourly salary, plus 50% overtime rate, plus 50% for benefits on base
rate, plus 12% in administrative charges. Three-hour minimum.
[5]Hourly salary, plus 50% for benefits on base rate, plus 12% in
administrative charges. One half-hour minimum.
APPENDIX B.8
Palo Alto
$551 per inspection; $82
per hour after 4hours
No Compariosn
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 PW-Engineering, Page 132 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Public Works - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
[6]Defined in federal regulations and municipal ordinance.
[7]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[8]Maximum per State law ($16/ $90)
[10]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)201608010934356772.pdf
[11]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
ScheduleWEB.pdf
[12]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[13]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[14]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
[15]SSF Current Fee: Minimum includes 2 site visits for projects valued
over $1,000.00.
APPENDIX B.8
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 133 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Damaged and Missing Materials
L1 AV Materials (contents or item damage)[5] Actual Cost of
each item
Actual Cost of
each item Cost plus $5 processing fee Replacement Cost No Comparison Price of material plus $5
processing fee
L3 CD/DVD Cases, Replacement of Lost or Damaged Per Case $ 2 $ 2
Liner Notes, Cover Sleeves Each $ 2 $ 2
Missing Book, DVD, etc. from Set [5] Actual Cost of Actual Cost of $ 10.00
Missing CD - from Audio Book Vendors that offer
Replacement [5] Prorated Cost of
set
Prorated Cost of
set $ 10.00
L7 Books [5] Actual Cost of
each item
Actual Cost of
each item Cost plus $5 processing fee Replacement Cost Cost plus $5 processing fee No Comparison
L8 Equipment [5] Actual Cost of
each item
Actual Cost of
each item Cost plus $5 processing fee Replacement Cost Cost plus $5 processing fee No Comparison
L9
Fines for Overdue Materials - Adult Materials, Books,
Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs etc. (Only affects
adult borrowers)
Daily [5,6] $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.25
L10
Fines for Overdue Materials - Children's Materials -
Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs, etc. (Only
affects adult borrowers)
Daily [5,6] $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $ 0.25 $ 0.15 $ 0.25 $ 0.20
L16 Lost, Replacement Charges - Magazines - See
Processing Fee Below [5] Actual Cost of
each item
Actual Cost of
each item Cost plus $5 processing fee Replacement Cost Cost plus $5 processing fee Price of material plus $5
processing fee
L18
Lost, Replacement Charges - Processing Fee
(Peninsula Library Automated Network Policy)
Applies to all Materials:
Catalogued Materials Each [6] $ 5 $ 5
Generic Materials Each [6] $ 2 $ 2
L19 Past Due Patron Accounts Referred to a Collection
Agency Per Referral [6] $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 No Comparison
L20 Paypal Convenience Fee Per
Transaction [5] $ 0.50 $ 0.50 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo
Price of material plus $5
processing fee Replacement Cost
$3 minor; Actual costs plus
$5 processing major Price of material plus $5
processing fee
Daly City
Price of material plus $5
processing fee Replacement Cost No Comparison Price of material plus $5
processing fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 134 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 135 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City
L21 Computer Printouts
Black & White Per Sheet [5] $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $ 0.15
Color Per Sheet [5] $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.40 $ 0.50 $ 0.30 $ 1.00
L22 History Book - SSF Each [5] $ 5 $ 5 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
L23 History Room Photographs - Digital Copies
Copy of CD/DVD (see City Clerk fee schedule)
Refer to City
Clerk Fee
Schedule
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
L24 History Room Photographs Print Copies Per Item $ 15 $ 15 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
L25 Holds See reserves
below
L25 Postcards - SSF, 3.5" x 5"
Black and White Each [5] $ 0.50 $ 0.50
Color Each [5] $ 1 $ 1
L26 Microfilm Copies Each [5] $ 0.25 $ 0.25 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison $ 0.25
L27 Photocopy Per Page [5] $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $0.15 - $0.30 $0.15 - $1.00
L28 Postcard, ID [5]
Price set by
United States
Postal Service
Price set by
United States
Postal Service
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
L29 Reserve: Out of County Reserve / Inter-Library Loan
SSF residents Flat [5] $ 3 $ 3
non-residents Flat [5] $ 5 $ 5
L30 Returned Check, Insufficient Funds
L31 Staff Research - General research requests, including
local hisotry research and site surveys
Per Hour or
portion
thereof
$ 40 No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
L32 Staff Research - Obituaries
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison $ 12.00
$ 5 No Comparison No Comparison $10 plus lending library
charges
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 136 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City
San Mateo County residents
Per Hour or
portion
thereof
Free Free
All others
Per Hour or
portion
thereof
$ 20 $ 20
L33 USB Drives Flat [3,5] Actual Cost Actual Cost $6 - $10 No Comparison No Comparison $ 35
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 137 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Recommended Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
Current Redwood City San Bruno San Mateo Daly City
L34 Field Trip Fee Flat [4,5] Actual Cost Actual Cost No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]$4-$10 depending upon unit cost
[4]$10-$40 depending upon cost of transportation, admission, etc.
[5]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[6]Fee set by Peninsula Library System (PLS)
[7]Total revenue sourced from FY 15/16 Revenue Report, ""; and used
for cost analysis purposes.
[8]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)_201608010934356772.pdf
[9]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
Schedule_WEB.pdf
[10]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[11]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[12]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 138 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Damaged and Missing Materials
L1 AV Materials (contents or item damage)[5]
L3 CD/DVD Cases, Replacement of Lost or Damaged Per Case
Liner Notes, Cover Sleeves Each
Missing Book, DVD, etc. from Set [5]
Missing CD - from Audio Book Vendors that offer
Replacement [5]
L7 Books [5]
L8 Equipment [5]
L9
Fines for Overdue Materials - Adult Materials, Books,
Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs etc. (Only affects
adult borrowers)
Daily [5,6]
L10
Fines for Overdue Materials - Children's Materials -
Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs, etc. (Only
affects adult borrowers)
Daily [5,6]
L16 Lost, Replacement Charges - Magazines - See
Processing Fee Below [5]
L18
Lost, Replacement Charges - Processing Fee
(Peninsula Library Automated Network Policy)
Applies to all Materials:
Catalogued Materials Each [6]
Generic Materials Each [6]
L19 Past Due Patron Accounts Referred to a Collection
Agency Per Referral [6]
L20 Paypal Convenience Fee Per
Transaction [5]
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.9
Cost of repair or
replacement
Cost of repair or
replacement
Cost of repair or
replacement
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
Cost of repair or
replacement
$ 10
No Comparison
Palo Alto
Cost of repair or
replacement
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 139 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
APPENDIX B.9
Palo Alto
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 140 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
L21 Computer Printouts
Black & White Per Sheet [5]
Color Per Sheet [5]
L22 History Book - SSF Each [5]
L23 History Room Photographs - Digital Copies
Copy of CD/DVD (see City Clerk fee schedule)
L24 History Room Photographs Print Copies Per Item
L25 Holds
L25 Postcards - SSF, 3.5" x 5"
Black and White Each [5]
Color Each [5]
L26 Microfilm Copies Each [5]
L27 Photocopy Per Page [5]
L28 Postcard, ID [5]
L29 Reserve: Out of County Reserve / Inter-Library Loan
SSF residents Flat [5]
non-residents Flat [5]
L30 Returned Check, Insufficient Funds
L31 Staff Research - General research requests, including
local hisotry research and site surveys
Per Hour or
portion
thereof
L32 Staff Research - Obituaries
APPENDIX B.9
Palo Alto
$ 0.15
$ 0.50
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
$3.25; $0.30 per
specification*Fire Dept. Fee
$0.15 - $0.50
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 141 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
San Mateo County residents
Per Hour or
portion
thereof
All others
Per Hour or
portion
thereof
L33 USB Drives Flat [3,5]
APPENDIX B.9
Palo Alto
$ 12
No Comparison
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/22/2017 Library, Page 142 of 142
City of South San Francisco
Library - User Fee Study FY 17
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities
Fee No.Fee Description Fee Unit
No
t
e
s
L34 Field Trip Fee Flat [4,5]
[Notes]
[1]Sourced from client provided PDF "FY 15-16 Master Fee Schedule"
[2]Time estimates sourced from ""
[3]$4-$10 depending upon unit cost
[4]$10-$40 depending upon cost of transportation, admission, etc.
[5]Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule (MFS); not included in cost
analysis
[6]Fee set by Peninsula Library System (PLS)
[7]Total revenue sourced from FY 15/16 Revenue Report, ""; and used
for cost analysis purposes.
[8]Sourced from: San Mateo_2016-17 Fee Manual - FINAL
(web)_201608010934356772.pdf
[9]Sourced from: Palo Alto_FY 2017 Adopted Municipal Fee
Schedule_WEB.pdf
[10]Sourced from: San Bruno_2015-16_CurrentMAsterFeeSchedule.pdg
[11]Sourced from: Redwood City Fee - Combined Web Documents
03.15.17.pdf
[12]Sourced from: Daly City Fee Schedules COMBINED 03.15.17.pdf
APPENDIX B.9
Palo Alto
No Comparison
2017/18 Recreation Program Fee Comparisons
SENIORS South San Francisco South San Francisco
Burlingame
(Senior Focus)
Menlo Park
(Rosenor House)
San Carlos
(Catholic Charities)
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Adult Day Care $45-55 per day $45-60 per day $49-70 $50-92 $50-75
CLASSES South San Francisco South San Francisco Pacifica San Bruno Daly City
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Pre-K/Tots Classes $2.94-$5.25 per hour add $15 per session $3.10-$5.52 per hour add $15 per session $4.80 add $5.00 per session $5.40 $6.60 $10.80 add $10 per
session
Ballet $6.77 per hour add $15 per session $7.11 per hour add $15 per session $13.20 add $5.00 per session $19.20 add $15 per
session
Tap Dance $5.36 per hour add $15 per session $5.63 per hour add $15 per session $21.60 add $15 per
session
$3.00 Drop-in
Group Tennis $6.45 per hour add $15 per session $6.77 per hour add $15 per session $21.60 add $5.00 per session $13.84 add $15 per
session
$7.86 add $10 per
session
Gymnastics $5.67 per hour add $15 per session $5.95 per hour add $15 per session
Guitar $6.98 per hour add $15 per session $7.33 per hour add $15 per session $20.00 add $15 per
session
$5.00 Drop-In
Dance/Tango/Salsa $6.72 per hour add $15 per session $7.06 per hour add $15 per session $10.64 add $5.00 per session $14.34 add $15 per
session
$6.90 add $10 per
session
Yoga $5.62 per hour add $15 per session $5.90 per hour add $15 per session $7.20 add $5.00 per session $8.40 add $15 per
session
$6.60 add $10 per
session
Tai Chi $5.04 per hour add $15 per session $5.29 per hour add $15 per session $11.63 add $5.00 per session $11.55 add $15 per
session
$3.18 add $10 per
session
Polynesian Dance $5.57 per hour add $15 per session $5.85 per hour add $15 per session $13.75 add $15 per
session
$9.00 add $10 per
session
Karate $3.20-5.00 per hour add $15 per session $3.36-5.25 per hour add $15 per session $4.80 add $15 per
session
$4.00 Drop-In
Sewing/Crafts $5.83 per hour add $15 per session $6.12 per hour add $15 per session $4.20-$7.20 add $5.00 per session $7.20 add $15 per
session
$5.00 Drop-In
PICNICS RENTALS South San Francisco South San Francisco San Bruno San Mateo Burlingame
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Sheltered Areas (150+ guests)$330-350 per day $345-365 $345-355 per day $360-380 $300 $375 $150 $150 $275 $350
Large Picnic Areas (50-100 guests)$93-130 per day $120-146 $96-135 per day $111-150 $95 $119 $150 $150 $200 $250
Medium Picnic Areas (30-50 guests $82-93 per day $98-130 $84-96 per day $99-111 $85 $107 $75 $75 $100 $135
Small Picnic Areas (0-20 guests)$67-82 per day $83-98 $36-84 per day $84-99 $85 $107 $50 $50
Offerings by Like Agencies2017/18 Proposed Fees
This table compares fiscal year (FY) 2017/18 proposed recreation fees to actual FY 2016/17 fees and offerings by like agencies, which were researched by Recreation staff. Note that services offered by "like agencies" may have variations in services offered
and fee structure that does not make this a direct comparative analysis between fees per program. Some of the differences are noted below.
2016/2017 Fees
Note: No other cities in the area provide city-sponsored Adult Day Care so the fees are being compared to private or non-profit agencies.
Note: South San Francisco primarily has part-time instructors on staff to provide recreation classes, with only a few contracted classes that are offered off site, and the City sets the fees per class. Most other cities use contracted instructors who typically set their own fees.
Note: Other cities may have more and/or higher costing additional fees for items like parking, alcohol, and other service charges.
Offerings by Like Agencies2017/18 Proposed Fees2016/2017 Fees
INDOOR FACILITY RENTALS South San Francisco South San Francisco Burlingame Daly City San Mateo
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Large Banquet Hall (250-300 guests)$185/hr $205/hr $194/hr $209/hr $249 (1st hr)/$125 (2+
hrs)
$284 (1st hr)/$142 (2+
hrs)
$200/hr add $75 (one
time)
$165/hr $195/hr
Medium Hall (150-200)$130-175/hr $150-195/hr $137-184/hr $152-199/hr $125/hr add $75 (one
time)
$165/hr $195/hr $252/hr $316/hr
Meeting Room (20-90 guests)$75-105/hr $90-120/hr $80-110/hr $95-125/hr $145(1st hr)/$73 (2+ hrs)157(1st hr)/$79 (2+
hrs)
$50-75 add $75 (one
time)
$200 for first 4
hrs, $63/hr after
$252 for first 4 hrs,
$63/hr after
YOUTH/MIDDLE SCHOOL
SPORTS South San Francisco South San Francisco Brisbane Millbrae San Bruno Pacifica
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident
Youth Flag Football $70 per season $75 per season $73 $150 $116 $95
Youth Volleyball $70 per season $75 per season $73 $150 $116 $95
Youth Basketball $70 per season $75 per season $73 $150 $116 $95
Youth Girls Lacrosse $70 per season $75 per season $150 $100
Youth Track/Cross Country $70 per season $75 per season $150 $60 $40
ADULT SPORTS South San Francisco South San Francisco Brisbane San Mateo Burlingame San Bruno
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident
Adult Softball $640 per team $736 $672 per team $768 $595 $810 $725 $700
AQUATICS South San Francisco South San Francisco Pacifica Daly City Brisbane
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Group Lessons $12.35 per hour Add $15 per session $13.00 per hour Add $15 per session $12.50 $13.33 $13.25 $17.00 $17.20 $20.80 $15.00 $18.75
Semi-Private Lessons $24.15 per hour Add $15 per session $25.35 per hour Add $15 per session $17.50 $18.33 $28.00 $34.50 $40.00 $48.00 n/a
Pool Rentals $108-136 per hour $121-149 $113-142 per hour $126-156 $125-154 $110-166 $138-208 $90-120 $108-144 $60 (50+ people
add $20 per hour)
$75 (50+ people
add $20 per hour)
CHILDCARE South San Francisco South San Francisco Boys & Girls Club (SSF)
SSF Unified
School District Pacifica
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Summer Camp $165 per week $195 per week $175-215 per week $205-240 per week $330 per 2-week session $252 per week $262 per week $259 per week $292 per week
7:30 am - 6:00 pm 7:30 am - 6:00 pm 8:00 am - 6:00 pm 8:00 am - 6:00 pm
Licensed Preschool $225-599 per month $252-672 per month $239-630 per month $266-704 per month $46/day
(~$920/mo)
$780 per month $780 per month $820 per month $820 per month
Before & Afterschool Program $125-396 per month $131-416 per month $130 per month $421 per month $540 per month $290 per month $290 per month
Note: Pacifica and Daly City are the only comparable city-owned, indoor swimming facilities in the immediate area. Brisbane operates an outdoor facility year-round. San Bruno has an outdoor facility that operates seasonally.
Not including $30 member fee. $1080 for all 9
weeks.
Not including $30 member fee. $10-$75
transportation fee.
Subsidized program. Participant fees
may be no-cost or lower-cost.
Note: Many surrounding cities do not offer city-sponsored, licensed before/after school and preschool programs, which is why the fee comparison for Childcare includes non-city entities like the Boys & Girls Club, SSFUSD, and Hillside Academy Preschool.
San BrunoHillside Academy Preschool (SSF)
San Bruno
San Bruno
Note: Other cities may have more and/or higher costing additional fees for items like parking, alcohol, and other service charges.
Note: Based on comparison of cities within the Northern California Recreation League (NCRL).
Note: Based on comparison of cities within the Sports Association for Northern California Recreation Agencies (SANCRA).
1 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
City of South San Francisco
User Fee Study
Final Report Presentation
May 25, 2017
2 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Key Issues Framing This Study
2 Defensible methodology
1 Compliant fee-for -service
3 Reasonable cost of providing services
4 Cost recovery
3 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Cost
Allocation
Plan
1
Allocates indirect costs
Full Cost Allocation Plan
4 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
User
Fee
Study
2
Determines full cost
recovery rate for user
fees
User Fee Study
5 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Cost Recovery Opportunities YES
Revenues Implemented by City
Council YES
Taxes, Fines, Development Impact
Fees, Utility Rates, etc. NO
User Fee Study
6 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Departments
Included:
Study Departments
City Clerk, City Manager & Finance
Economic & Comm Development
Library
Police
Parks & Recreation
Fire
Public Works - Engineering
7 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Fee Study Methodology
Productive Hourly Rate
Time to Complete
Cost
Calculation
8 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Fee Study Methodology – Defining “Total Cost”
Direct Departmental Budget: Salaries and Benefits,
Services and Supplies
Indirect
Department/Division: management, clerical,
training. Citywide: HR, Finance, City Manager,
etc.
Fee Specific Pass -through costs, specific materials, etc.
Costs Contents
9 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Summary Results for Recommended Fees
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated
Annual Full
Cost Recovery
Fee Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus
/ (Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Amount of Cost
Recovered per Staff-
Recommended Fee
Actions
Staff
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Percentage
City Clerk $ 44,109 $ 273,341 $ (229,232)16% $ 48,469 18%
City Manager $ 800 $ 1,084 (284)74% $ 1,084 100%
Finance $ 936 $ 3,913 (2,977)24% $ 714 18%
Econ & Comm
Devt - Planning $ 468,904 $ 839,787 (370,883)56% $ 839,787 100%
Econ & Comm
Devt - Building $ 4,605,467 $ 7,923,947 (3,318,480)58% $ 7,923,955 100%
Police $ 84,476 $ 234,275 (149,800)36% $ 220,227 94%
Fire $ 484,703 $ 1,669,717 (1,185,014)29% $ 1,669,717 100%
Public Works -
Engineering $ 343,500 $ 569,670 (226,170)60% $ 569,670 100%
Library [1] $ - $ - n/a n/a $ - n/a
Parks and
Recreation [2] $ 4,197,053 $ 6,989,816 (2,792,763)60% $ 4,197,053 60%
General Plan
Maintenance Fee $ 642,962 $ 636,977 5,985 101% $ 636,977 100%
Total [1] $ 10,872,910 $ 19,142,527 $ (8,269,617)57% $ 16,107,654 84%
[1] Based on data available at the time of the study, the Library's results do not provide projected revenue outcomes
[2] Parks and Recreation Department analysis includes only Recreation programs and services in the cost analysis
10 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
24 user fees included in cost
analysis
3 fees with recommended
reduction in fee
1 new fee
City Clerk - Notable Items
11 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
City Manager Fee - Notable Items
Film Permit
Current Fee $400
Recommended at
Full Cost $542
12 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
3 user fees included in cost
analysis
1 fee with recommended
reduction in fee
1 fee with recommended increase
Finance – Notable Items
13 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Ec. & Comm. Dev. – Planning - Notable Items
1 50 fees included in cost analysis
2 Some fees recommended to be
changed from flat fee to a deposit
3 3 fees with recommended
reduction in fee
4 General Plan Maintenance Fee –
Recommended @ 100% recovery
14 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Ec. & Comm. Dev. – Building - Notable Items
Trade Plan Ck
recovery very
low (3-20%
recovery)
City charges
using a project
valuation
based fee
Restructured
fee schedule
for simplicity
where possible
New Permit
Processing Fee
added
Fee reduction
recommended for
projects > $1M
for incremental
2 fees with
recommended
reduction in fee
15 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
34 user fees included in cost
analysis
4 fees with recommended
reduction in fee
1 new fee
Police - Notable Items
16 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Fire - Notable Items
1 126 fees included in cost analysis
2 Fees recommended at full cost
recovery, except Fire Training classes
3 Current cost recovery is approximately
29% for User Fee services
17 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Public Works - Engineering - Notable Items
2 exceptions :
Transportation
Permit (set by
State)
Restructured of
fees for
Improvement
projects
Current
recovery is
estimated at
60%
35 fees
included in
cost analysis
Fees
recommended at
full cost recovery;
2 exceptions
18 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Library - Notable Items
34 fees included in fee
study
No recommended
changes to current fees
Many fees are set by
Peninsula Library
System
19 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
10 Recreation Programs included in
cost analysis
Overall recovery is estimated at
60% for Recreation Programs
1 permit include in cost analysis
Parks and Recreation - Notable Items
20 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
•Economic Downturns
•Budget and Staffing Changes
•Process Improvements
Fee Study Best Management Practices
3 Annual increase mechanism
4 Combined Municipal Fee Schedule
1 Comprehensive fee study every 3 - 5 years
2 More frequent study during fluctuations
5 Established and documented Cost Recovery Policy
21 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Greta Davis
Financial Consulting Group
Questions and Comments
800.676.7516
gdavis@nbsgov.com
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES
QUIMBY ACT AND MITIGATION FEE ACT REPORT
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC
675 HARTZ AVENUE, SUITE 300
DANVILLE, CA 94526
(530) 878-9100
MARCH 2016
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES
QUIMBY ACT AND MITIGATION FEE ACT REPORT
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... .1
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................... 8
II. QUIMBY ACT PARK LAND ACQUISITION IN‐LIEU FEE ............................................................... 15
III. PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEE – MITIGATION FEE ACT ........................................................... 20
IV. PARK CONSTRUCTION FEE .................................................................................................................... 26
V. PARK ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES SUMMARY ...................................... 31
VI. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................................................... 32
VII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 33
ATTACHMENT 1: DANA PROPERTY ANALYSIS WEIGHTED AVERAGE MARKET VALUES
ATTACHMENT 2: GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH + PLANNING INC. PARK
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES
QUIMBY ACT AND MITIGATION FEE ACT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
______________________________________________________________________________
The City of South San Francisco adopted an ordinance in 1981 requiring certain
residential developments to dedicate land for park and recreation purposes, or to pay a fee
in‐lieu of the land dedication. The General Plan, Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the
East of 101 Area Plan have revised the City’s park and recreation goals to include
acquisition and construction of three acres of parks per one‐thousand residents for all new
residential development projects, and acquisition and construction of 0.5 acres per one‐
thousand employees for all new commercial development projects.
The City has engaged Municipal Resource Group LLC to prepare an analysis and
Report with recommendations to update the Park Land Acquisition Fee and to adopt a Park
Construction Fee.
The fees calculated in this Report are the maximum fees that the City may adopt for
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction. The City may adopt fees as calculated in this
Report, or may discount the fees and explore other methods to finance the achievement of
its park goals.
AUTHORITY TO ADOPT PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEES AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES
The City’s goal of three acres per thousand residents can continue to be partially
achieved through the authority of the Quimby Act. Generally, Quimby Act land dedication
and in‐lieu fee requirements apply to new subdivisions, but not to multifamily residential
development projects (rental units) or commercial development projects. To establish fee
requirements for these other development projects, cities may adopt a Park Land
Acquisition Fee for future residential and commercial development projects that are not
subject to the Quimby Act, based on the authority provided in the Mitigation Fee Act.
The proposed Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land
Acquisition Fee are intended to provide funds to acquire park land to serve new residents
and employees.
A separate Park Construction Fee is proposed to pay for the construction of park
facilities and improvements to serve new residents and employees, also under the authority
of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
2
CURRENT DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AND IN‐LIEU FEES
The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (Chapter 19.24) establishes the
existing procedures for the Quimby Act dedication of land or the payment of an in‐lieu fee.
The Municipal Code requires the City to obtain a separate appraisal for each development
project that is subject to the Quimby Act. The City then calculates the in‐lieu fee per
residential unit based on each appraisal and other criteria established in the Municipal
Code.
Under existing Municipal Code procedures, the Quimby Act in‐lieu fees can vary
widely based on the appraisals of the subject properties. Instead of these individual
appraisals, this Report recommends the use of a single market land valuation for park land
acquisition fees for all future residential and commercial development projects and
proposes a common fee for similar residential development projects and commercial
development projects.
PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEES ‐ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The proposed methodology for calculating both the Quimby Act In‐lieu fees for
residential subdivisions and the Mitigation Fee Act fee for all other residential development
projects is based on the City’s standard of three acres of park land per one‐thousand
residents (.003 acres per resident), the number of residents in each residential
classification, and the market value of land.
The acres required for each residential classification (Units in Structure) are
identified in Table ES‐1 by multiplying .003 acres per resident by the average number of
residents in each land use classification.
Table ES‐1: Park Land Acres Required per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Acres per
Resident
Residents per
Unit
Park Land Acres
Required per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.003 3.45 0.01035
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.003 2.98 0.00894
5 to 19 0.003 2.53 0.00759
20 to 49 0.003 2.04 0.00612
50 or more 0.003 1.78 0.00534
Mobile home 0.003 2.65 0.00795
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Municipal Resource Group LLC
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
3
To determine the value of land, the City contracted with Dana Property Analysis to
prepare an analysis of the average market value of vacant land, estimated at $3,000,000 per
acre. Table ES‐2 calculates the Park Land Acquisition Fee per residential unit by
multiplying the park land acres required per unit (from Table ES‐1) by the $3,000,000
market value per acre.
Table ES‐2: Park Land Acquisition Fee per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Park Land Acres
Required per Unit
Market Value of
Land per Acre Fee per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.01035 $3,000,000 $31,050
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.00894 $3,000,000 $26,820
5 to 19 0.00759 $3,000,000 $22,770
20 to 49 0.00612 $3,000,000 $18,360
50 or more 0.00534 $3,000,000 $16,020
Mobile home 0.00795 $3,000,000 $23,850
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal
Resource Group LLC
PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEES – COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan establish a
standard of 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees. Fees on commercial projects are
typically applied per one‐thousand square feet of building space. The number of employees
per one‐thousand square feet of building space varies among commercial uses.
Table ES‐3 calculates the park land acreage required per one‐thousand square feet
of new commercial building space by multiplying the number of employees per one‐
thousand square feet by the acreage required per employee (0.5 acres per one‐thousand
employees is equal to .0005 acres per employee).
Table ES‐3: Park Land Acreage Required per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Employees per
1,000 Square Feet
Park Land Acres
Required per Employee
Park Land Acres
Required per 1,000
Square Feet
Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 acres.00125 acres
Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 acres .00119 acres
Office/R&D 2.22 .0005 acres .00111 acres
Industrial 1.05 .0005 acres.00052 acres
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Municipal Resource
Group LLC
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
4
The Park Land Acquisition Fee is based on the amount of land required to meet the
applicable park land standard, and the $3,000,000 market value of land.
Table ES‐4 calculates the fee per one‐thousand square feet of commercial space by
multiplying the required acres per 1,000 square feet (from Table ES‐3) by the $3,000,000
market value per acre.
Table ES‐4: Park Land Acquisition Fee per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Park Land Acres per
1,000 Square Feet
Market Value of Land
per Acre
Fee per 1,000 Square
Feet
Commercial/Retail .00125 acres $3,000,000 $3,750
Hotel/Visitor .00119 acres $3,000,000 $3,571
Office/R&D .00111 acres $3,000,000 $3,333
Industrial .00052 acres $3,000,000 $1,571
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Dana Property Analysis;
Municipal Resource Group LLC
PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES
While the Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Park Land Acquisition Fee will provide for
the acquisition of park land, the proposed Park Construction Fee provides funds for the
construction of park facilities and improvements on the land acquired with the proceeds
from the other fees.
PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES ‐ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The acreage to be improved with park facilities to serve residential development is
the same as established for park land acquisition: three acres per one‐thousand future
residents.
The Park Construction Fee is based on the amount of land required to be
improved and the cost of constructing park facilities and improvements. The average hard
and soft construction cost per acre is $981,250, as estimated by Group 4 Architecture,
Research + Planning, Inc.
Table ES‐5 calculates the fee per residential unit by multiplying the required acres
per unit by the $981,250 construction cost per acre per acre.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
5
Table ES‐5: Park Construction Fee per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Park Acres per
Unit
Construction Cost
per Acre Fee per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.01035 $981,250 $10,156
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.00894 $981,250 $ 8,772
5 to 19 0.00759 $981,250 $ 7,448
20 to 49 0.00612 $981,250 $ 6,005
50 or more 0.00534 $981,250 $ 5,240
Mobile home 0.00795 $981,250 $ 7,801
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Group 4 Architecture, Research +
Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC
PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES ‐ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan establish a
standard of 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees in the City. The acreage to be
improved with park facilities to serve commercial development is the same as established
for park land acquisition: 0.5 acres per one‐thousand employees.
Table ES‐6 calculates the park acreage required to be improved per one‐thousand
square feet of new commercial building space by multiplying the employees per one‐
thousand square feet by the acreage required per employee.
Table ES‐6: Park Acres to be Improved per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Employees per
1,000 Square Feet
Park Acres Required
per Employee
Acres to be Improved per
1,000 Square Feet
Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 acres .00125 acres
Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 acres .00119 acres
Office/R&D 2.22.0005 acres .00111 acres
Industrial 1.05 .0005 acres .00052 acres
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Dana Property Analysis;
Municipal Resource Group LLC
Table ES‐7 calculates the fee per one‐thousand square feet of commercial space by
multiplying the required acres per employees (from Table ES‐6) by the $981,250
construction cost per acre per acre.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
6
Table ES‐7: Park Construction Fee per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Park Acres per 1,000
Square Feet
Construction Cost
per Acre
Fee per 1,000 Square
Feet
Commercial/Retail .00125 acres $981,250 $1,227
Hotel/Visitor .00119 acres $981,250 $1,168
Office/R&D .00111 acres $981,250 $1,090
Industrial .00052 acres $981,250 $ 514
Source: City of South San Francisco; Parks + Recreation Master Plan; Group 4 Architecture, Research
+ Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC
FEE SUMMARY
Table ES‐8 presents the proposed Park Land Acquisition Fees (Quimby Act and
Mitigation Fee Act) and the Park Construction Fees for residential units. The City may adopt
fees equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table ES‐8.
Table ES‐8: Total Park Fees per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Park Land
Acquisition Fee
Park
Construction Fee Total Park Fees
1 (single‐family residential unit) $31,050 $10,156 $41,206
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) $26,820 $ 8,772 $35,592
5 to 19 $22,770 $ 7,448 $30,218
20 to 49 $18,360 $ 6,005 $24,365
50 or more $16,020 $ 5,240 $21,260
Mobile home $23, 850 $ 7,801 $31,651
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Group 4
Architecture + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC
Table ES‐9 presents the proposed Park Land Acquisition Fees and the Park
Construction Fees for commercial development projects. The City may adopt fee equal to, or
below the amounts identified in Table ES‐9.
Table ES‐9: Total Park Fees per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Park Land
Acquisition Fee
Park
Construction Fee Total Park Fees
Commercial/Retail $3,750 $1,227 $4,977
Hotel/Visitor $3,571 $1,168 $4,739
Office/R&D $3,333 $1,090 $4,423
Industrial $1,571 $ 514 $2,085
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Group 4
Architecture + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
7
QUIMBY ACT AND MITGATION FEE ACT REQUIREMENTS; FEE ADJUSTMENTS
The Report provides recommended findings to adopt the Quimby Act In‐lieu fees
and the Mitigation Fee Act fees. It also provides a summary of the statutory and
administrative requirements for both Acts and proposes mechanisms to adjust the fees on
an annual basis.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
8
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
______________________________________________________________________________
The City of South San Francisco adopted an ordinance in 1981 requiring certain new
residential subdivisions to dedicate land for park and recreation purposes, or to pay a fee
in‐lieu of the land dedication. The City subsequently adopted a revised General Plan, an
East of 101 Area Plan and a revised Parks + Recreation Master Plan with new park and
recreation goals.
The purpose of this analysis and Report is to provide recommendations to revise
and update the Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu Fee ordinance, and to adopt a Park
Construction Fee, to be consistent with and to implement the goals of the General Plan, the
Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan.
The fees calculated in this Report are the maximum fees that the City may adopt for
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction. The City may adopt fees as calculated in this
Report, or may discount the fees and explore other methods to finance the achievement of
its park goals.
GENERAL PLAN GOALS
The City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in 1999, contains several
Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies regarding park and recreation facilities. The
General Plan provides for new park land in South San Francisco by setting a park land
acreage standard for new residents and employees. The following policies are articulated in
the General Plan:
“Guiding Policy 5.1‐G‐1: Develop additional park land in the City, particularly in
areas lacking facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new
residents and employees.”
“Implementing Policy 5.1‐I‐2: Maintain park land standards of 3.0 acres of
community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and 0.5 acres of park
land per 1,000 new employees, to be located in employment areas.”
“Implementing Policy 5.1‐I‐3: Prefer in‐lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered
for dedication provide features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites
shown on General Plan Figure 5‐1 and shown in more detail in the El Camino Real /
Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. Opportunities for park dedication with new residential
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
9
development are limited. In‐lieu fees are intended to give the City flexibility to
purchase available park land elsewhere in the City.”
“Implementing Policy 5.1‐I‐10: Review the current regulations for the dedication of
park land in subdivisions to ensure that requirements are adequate to meet the
standards of the General Plan at Plan build‐out.”
PARKS + RECREATION MASTER PLAN GOALS
The Parks + Recreation Master Plan adopted in July 2015 reiterates park facility
goals:
“Goal #1: South San Francisco should provide a minimum of 3 acres of developed
park land per 1,000 residents, and 0.5 acres of park land per 1,000 employees.”
The Parks + Recreation Master Plan also provides policy guidance regarding the use
of the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code section 66000 et seq) for the purpose
of including all future residential and commercial development projects in a fee program to
acquire park land and to construct park facilities. The Parks + Recreation Master Plan states,
in part, beginning on page 122:
“The improvement and expansion of the Parks and Recreation Facilities as
recommended in this Master Plan and the City’s General Plan are policies based a
comprehensive needs assessment. Fees exacted under AB1600 (Mitigation Fee Act)
would be designated for carrying out the improvements set forth in these
documents, which reflect the demands that will result from the increased
population of residents and employees resulting from development projects.
Whereas the Quimby Act applies only to owner‐occupied development projects, fees
may be assessed against other development types, including rental and commercial
projects. The City should implement park fees on new development projects. This is
particularly important at this time, when the pace of rental and commercial
construction is accelerating rapidly, and the increase in the number of new
residents and employees will significantly impact the parks system” (underlining
added).
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
10
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN GOALS
The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted in 1994, and as its name reflects, it
establishes policies and goals for the area east of Highway 101. The East of 101 Area Plan
discusses the importance of public facilities to serve the area, and states the following
policy:
“Policy RE‐2: Developers in the East of 101 Area shall be required to either pay park
in‐lieu fees or dedicate park land based on a formula developed by the City which
estimates the demand for park and recreational facilities generated by the expected
employment of the project.”
THE QUIMBY ACT
Park land dedication requirements for residential subdivisions are authorized by
the Quimby Act, as codified in the California Government Code, beginning with Section
66477. The Quimby Act authorizes a City to require the dedication of a minimum of three
acres of land per one‐thousand residents in proposed residential subdivisions, or the
payment of an in‐lieu fee. If the amount of existing park land in the City exceeds a ratio of
three acres per one‐thousand residents, the City may require the dedication of the existing
ratio of park land per one‐thousand residents, up to a maximum of five acres per one‐
thousand future residents.
Quimby Act land dedication and in‐lieu fee requirements apply to parcels created by
a major residential subdivision (five or more parcels). They also apply to parcel maps
created by a minor residential subdivision (a subdivision of four parcels or less) if a building
permit is requested within four years of the approval of the parcel map for the minor
subdivision. The Quimby Act requirements do not apply to commercial development
projects or multifamily residential (rental) development projects, existing single family
residential lots that do not require a subdivision to develop, or minor subdivisions that do
not seek building permits within four years of receiving parcel map approval.
In the event that a proposed residential subdivision is less than fifty parcels, the City
may only require the payment of an in‐lieu fee (and not the dedication of land).
The in‐lieu fees may only be used for acquiring land and developing new park and
recreation facilities, or rehabilitating existing neighborhood parks, community parks and
recreational facilities.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
11
The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provides park land inventory
data:
“South San Francisco currently includes 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4
acres per 1,000 residents…This includes 70 acres of developed park land
(community, neighborhood, mini and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space and
81.2 acres of school lands. While the overall amount of park land appears to meet
the community’s needs, closer analysis reveals that only 1.2 acres of developed park
land, excluding school parks and open space, is available per 1,000 residents.”
(South San Francisco General Plan, Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services
Element, 1999).
The Parks + Recreation Master Plan updates the current inventory of park land:
“Currently, there are approximately 1.4 acres of community, neighborhood
and mini‐park per 1,000 South San Francisco residents. Including the linear
parks, specialty parks and common greens, the ratio rises to a total of 2.7
acres of developed park land per 1,000. When Open Space is included in this
calculation, South San Francisco provides 3.9 acres of park land per 1,000
residents. Finally, including school sites that currently have joint use
facilities, the acreage increases to 5.4 per 1,000.” (Parks + Recreation Master
Plan, page 98)
Based on the current inventory of park land, the General Plan and the Park +
Recreation Master Plan establish a park land standard of three acres per one‐thousand
future residents, consistent with the minimum dedication standard in the Quimby Act.
Chapter II in this Report provides the analysis for the calculation of a Quimby Act In‐
lieu Fee based on the three acres per one‐thousand future residents’ standard established in
the General Plan and the Parks + Recreation Master Plan.
THE MITIGATION FEE ACT
Separate from the Quimby Act, authority for establishing development impact fees
for residential and commercial development projects is found in the Mitigation Fee Act, also
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
12
known as AB 1600, as codified in the California Government Code beginning with Section
66000.
The Mitigation Fee Act permits local agencies to establish and collect a fee as a
condition of approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying the cost of
public facilities required to serve the development project. The fee may include the cost of
refurbishing existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or to achieve an
adopted level of service that is consistent with the General Plan. The public facilities must
be identified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, an applicable specific plan or
other public documents. The fee may not be used to pay for existing deficiencies in public
facilities.
Under the Mitigation Fee Act, a local agency considering an action establishing,
increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project must do all
of the following:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee.
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use
and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for
the public facility and the type of development project upon which the
fee is imposed.
5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount
of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public
facility attributable to the development upon which the fee is imposed.
To establish equal fee requirements for future residential development projects that
are not subject to the Quimby Act, cities may also adopt a Park Land Acquisition Fee under
authority of the Mitigation Fee Act. Chapter III in this Report provides the analysis required
by the Mitigation Fee Act for a proposed Park Land Acquisition Fee for residential
development projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act. Under no circumstances
would both the Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Park Land Acquisition Fee apply to the same
residential parcel.
The General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan
establish a standard of 0.5 acres of parks per one‐thousand new employees for future
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
13
commercial developments. Chapter III in this Report provides the analysis required by the
Mitigation Fee Act for a proposed Park Land Acquisition Fee for commercial development
projects.
The proposed Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land
Acquisition Fee are based on the cost of acquiring the land required by the City’s three acres
per one‐thousand residents’ standard and the 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees’
standard. These park land acquisition fees do not include the cost of constructing park
facilities and improvements on the park land. Therefore, a separate Park Construction Fee
is proposed to pay for the construction of park facilities and improvements on park land
required to serve new residents and employees. Chapter IV in this Report provides the
analysis required by the Mitigation Fee Act for a proposed Park Construction Fee.
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
The City of South San Francisco currently imposes park land acquisition in‐lieu fees
on residential subdivisions that are subject to the Quimby Act. The City’s Municipal Code
Chapter 19.24 establishes procedures for the dedication of land or the payment of an in‐lieu
fee for Quimby Act park land acquisition. The Municipal Code requires the City to obtain an
appraisal for each development project that is subject to the Quimby Act (and for the
developer to reimburse the City for the cost of the appraisal). The City then calculates the
in‐lieu fee per residential unit based on the appraisal and other criteria established in the
Municipal Code.
Under existing Municipal Code procedures, the Quimby Act fees for the two most
recent projects were $27,522 per residential unit and $22,966 per residential unit (before
partial project‐related credits for private recreational space). The fees for both projects
were calculated using the existing “multi‐family/high density” formula. Yet there is
disparity between the fees for the two projects, due to differences in appraised values for
the two projects, even though both projects generate the same demand for park facilities
per person and per residential unit.
This Report proposes that the Municipal Code be revised by setting an in‐lieu fee
that would apply equally to all residential developments with similar population densities,
based on a single current land value. By adopting this methodology, the requirement for an
appraisal on every residential subdivision will be eliminated. Moreover, potential
developers will know what the fee will be in advance of seeking permit approvals.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
14
REPORT OBJECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This Report is intended to assist the City of South San Francisco in achieving the
policies, goals and implementation measures in the General Plan, the Parks + Recreation
Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. The overall objective is to offer procedures to
ensure that the City attains its goal of acquiring and constructing three acres of community
and neighborhood park land per one‐thousand future residents, and 0.5 acres of park land
per one‐thousand new employees, and that fees paid by new development projects
contribute proportionately toward these goals.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
15
II. QUIMBY ACT PARK LAND ACQUISITION IN‐LIEU FEE
______________________________________________________________________________
The Quimby Act authorizes the dedication of land or a payment of an in‐lieu fee for
three acres of park land per one‐thousand future residents, or up to five acres of park land
per one‐thousand future residents if there is an existing inventory of at least five acres of
park land per one‐thousand residents. The South San Francisco General Plan and the Parks
+ Recreation Master Plan identify and establish a City goal of three acres of park land per
one‐thousand future residents. This Chapter calculates the Quimby Act Park Land
Acquisition In‐lieu Fee based on three acres per one‐thousand future residents. As
previously discussed, the Quimby Act in‐lieu fee applies only to parcels created by a major
residential subdivision (five or more parcels) and to parcels created by a minor residential
subdivision (four parcels or less) if a building permit is requested within four years of the
approval of the parcel map for the minor subdivision.
CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE REQUIRED PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT
Park land acquisition in‐lieu fees are charged on a per residential unit basis, based
on the average number of residents who live in a particular type of residential unit.
Different types of residential units have different average numbers of residents per unit.
The United States Census Bureau publishes annual demographic and population
data, known as American FactFinder data. The 2014 American FactFinder data is the most
current, credible and verifiable data available. The data is provided per residential unit,
based on the number of units in a structure. For all residential units, the average is 3.12
persons per unit. The data indicates that the more units in a structure, the fewer persons
live in each unit. Table II‐1 provides 2014 American FactFinder data for residents per unit.
Table II‐1: Residents per Residential Unit, City of South San Francisco
Units in Structure Residents per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 3.45
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 2.98
5 to 19 2.53
20 to 49 2.04
50 or more 1.78
Mobile home 2.65
Average, City of South San Francisco 3.12
Source: United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
16
The City's standard of three acres per one‐thousand future residents is equal to .003
acres per resident (three acres divided by one‐thousand residents). The park land acreage
required per residential unit is calculated in Table II‐2, below, by multiplying .003 acres per
resident by the average number of residents in the residential units indicated previously in
Table II‐1.
Table II‐2: Park Land Acres Required per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Acres per
Resident
Residents per
Unit
Park Land Acres
Required per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.003 3.45 0.01035
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.003 2.98 0.00894
5 to 19 0.003 2.53 0.00759
20 to 49 0.003 2.04 0.00612
50 or more 0.003 1.78 0.00534
Mobile home 0.003 2.65 0.00795
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124
CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT
The in‐lieu fee is based on the amount of land required to meet the applicable park
land standard, and the market value of land. To determine the market value of land, the City
contracted with an appraisal firm, Dana Property Analysis, to prepare an analysis of the
average market value of vacant land in South San Francisco. The Dana Property Analysis is
provided as Attachment 1 to this Report. The average market value of vacant land in South
San Francisco is estimated by Dana Property Analysis to be $3,000,000 per acre.
South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 19.24.090(a) currently requires that
the in‐lieu fee include the fair market value of land, plus a factor of twenty percent to
provide funding for off‐site improvements required by Municipal Code Section
19.24.080(c). More specifically, Section 19.24.080(c) requires “(1) full street improvements
and utility connections, including, but not limited to curbs, gutters, street paving, traffic
control devices, street trees, and sidewalks to the land dedicated pursuant to this section; (2)
fencing along the property line of that portion of the subdivision contiguous to the dedicated
land; (3) improved drainage throughout the dedicated land; and (4) other minimal
improvements which the City Council determines to be essential to the acceptance of the land
for recreational purposes.” This Report and analysis of the Quimby Act in‐lieu fee proposes
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
17
that the twenty percent factor currently added to the in‐lieu fees be deleted from the South
San Francisco Municipal Code, for the following reasons:
The market value of land estimated by Dana Property Analysis is based on
comparable sales data for recent sales in the South San Francisco area. Many of the
comparable sales already have the public improvements referenced in
19.20.080(c)(1); therefore, the cost of these public improvements is already
included in the market value of land.
Fencing along the property line adjacent to the subdivision as referenced in
19.20.080(c)(2) would not be required, because the in‐lieu fees will be used to
purchase suitable park land that is not likely to be adjacent to the subdivision.
This Report recommends a separate Park Construction Fee, based on the projected
cost of building parks, which would include the improved drainage and other
minimal improvements referenced in sections 19.24.080(c)(3) and 19.24.080(c)(4).
Table II‐3 calculates the Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐Lieu fee per
residential unit by multiplying the required acres per unit (from Table II‐2) by the
$3,000,000 market value per acre.
Table II‐3: Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐Lieu Fee per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Park Land Acres
Required per Unit
Market Value of
Land per Acre Fee per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.01035 $3,000,000 $31,050
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.00894 $3,000,000 $26,820
5 to 19 0.00759 $3,000,000 $22,770
20 to 49 0.00612 $3,000,000 $18,360
50 or more 0.00534 $3,000,000 $16,020
Mobile home 0.00795 $3,000,000 $23,850
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal
Resource Group LLC
Table II‐3 demonstrates that fees under the proposed methodology would vary
only by the difference in expected number of units in a structure and residents per unit, and
not by different appraisal values.
The City may adopt Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu fees equal to, or below
the amounts identified in Table II‐3.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
18
The City will incur costs to administer the fee program and to prepare the
compliance analyses and reports required by the Quimby Act. The compliance
requirements are identified in Chapter VII of this Report. The City may add an
administration cost factor to the fee, to cover the cost of administering the programs and
the cost of compliance with statutory requirements.
QUIMBY ACT REQUIREMENTS
The Quimby Act requires a local agency to address the following key procedural
requirements when adopting the dedication requirements and the in‐lieu fee. The Quimby
Act contains other requirements as well, which may be found in the California Government
Code beginning with Section 66477.
1. Adopt a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for
parks and recreation facilities.
The City of South San Francisco General Plan and the Parks + Recreation
Master Plan establish a standard of three acres of park land for each one‐
thousand residents.
2. Adopt an ordinance requiring the dedication of land or the imposition of a
requirement for the payment of a fee in‐lieu of the dedication of land, or a
combination of both. The ordinance must include definite standards for
determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of
the in‐lieu fee. The amount of land to be dedicated and the fee must be based
upon the density of each residential type.
It will be necessary for the City to revise its enabling ordinance to implement
the proposed in‐lieu fee methodology. It is also recommended that the City
adopt a fee resolution, implementing the proposed in‐lieu fee.
3. The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid must
bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities
by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
19
The City of South San Francisco has established a standard level of service of
three acres of park land for each one‐thousand residents. This standard is
based upon the minimum requirement in the Quimby Act. The land
dedication requirement and the in‐lieu fees are calculated to maintain this
standard for future residents.
4. A schedule must be developed specifying how, when, and where the City will
use the land or fees to develop park and recreational facilities.
The General Plan and the Parks + Recreation Master Plan identify the
location of several of the proposed future parks. It will be necessary for the
City to adopt a separate schedule showing how the City will use the land or
fees (site acquisition), when the City will use the fees (in five year intervals)
and where the City will use the fees (specific sites and locations).
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
20
III. PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEE – MITIGATION FEE ACT
(NON‐QUIMBY ACT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS)
______________________________________________________________________________
The City of South San Francisco currently collects park land acquisition fees only
from residential development projects that are subject to the Quimby Act. Quimby Act land
dedication and in‐lieu fee requirements apply to parcels created by a major residential
subdivision (five or more parcels) and to parcels created by a minor residential subdivision
(four parcels or less) if a building permit is requested within four years of the approval of
the parcel map for the minor subdivision. Quimby Act requirements do not apply to an
existing residential lot that has not previously paid a park fee, multi‐family residential
(rental) development projects or commercial development projects.
The General Plan and the Parks + Recreation Master Plan include goals to collect
park land acquisition fees from all new residential development projects and all new
commercial development projects.
Residents who will occupy future residential units that are not currently subject to
the Quimby Act in‐lieu fee will nonetheless create demand for park facilities. To address
this demand, public agencies may adopt a residential Park Land Acquisition Fee under the
authority of the Mitigation Fee Act to collect a similar fee from residential development
projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act.
Similarly, employees who work in future commercial projects will also impact park
facilities (lunch time activity and picnic areas, before and after work activities, outdoor
exercise, sports leagues and other recreational activities). To address this demand, public
agencies may adopt a commercial Park Land Acquisition Fee under the authority of the
Mitigation Fee Act to collect a proportionate fee from commercial development projects
that are not subject to the Quimby Act. The City of South San Francisco has established a
goal of creating one‐half acre of park land for each one‐thousand employees, and has
directed that this Report identify a potential fee to implement this goal for future
employees.
This Chapter provides the analysis and findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act
to collect park land acquisition fees from future residential development projects and
commercial development projects that are not subject to the Quimby Act. The analysis and
calculation of the Park Land Acquisition Fee in this Chapter parallels the analysis and
calculation of the Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu Fee in Chapter II. However,
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
21
under no circumstance would both the Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In‐lieu Fee and
the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee apply to the same residential development
parcel or project.
CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE REQUIRED PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT
Park land acquisition fees are charged on a per unit basis, based on the average
number of residents who live in a residential unit. As discussed in Chapter II, different
types of residential units have different average number of residents per unit. Table III‐1
provides 2014 American FactFinder data for residents per unit.
Table III‐1: Residents per Residential Unit, City of South San Francisco
Units in Structure Residents per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 3.45
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 2.98
5 to 19 2.53
20 to 49 2.04
50 or more 1.78
Mobile home 2.65
Average 3.12
Source: United States Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124
The City's standard of three acres per one‐thousand future residents is equal to .003
acres per resident (three acres divided by one‐thousand residents). The park land acreage
required per residential unit is calculated in Table III‐2, below, by multiplying .003 acres
per resident by the average number of residents in residential units indicated previously in
Table III‐1.
Table III‐2: Park Land Acres Required per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Acres per
Resident
Residents per
Unit
Park Land Acres
Required per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.003 3.45 0.01035
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.003 2.98 0.00894
5 to 19 0.003 2.53 0.00759
20 to 49 0.003 2.04 0.00612
50 or more 0.003 1.78 0.00534
Mobile home 0.003 2.65 0.00795
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Municipal Resource Group LLC
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
22
CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT
The Park Land Acquisition Fee is based on the amount of land required to meet the
applicable park land standard, and the market value of land. As discussed in Chapter II, the
average market value of vacant in South San Francisco is estimated to be $3,000,000 per
acre.
Table III‐3 calculates the fee per residential unit by multiplying the required acres
per unit (from Table III‐2) by the $3,000,000 market value per acre.
Table III‐3: Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Park Land Acres
Required per Unit
Market Value of
Land per Acre Fee per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 3.45 $3,000,000 $31,050
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 2.98 $3,000,000 $26,820
5 to 19 2.53 $3,000,000 $22,770
20 to 49 2.04 $3,000,000 $18,360
50 or more 1.78 $3,000,000 $16,020
Mobile home 2.65 $3,000,000 $23,850
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Municipal
Resource Group LLC
The City may adopt Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fees for residential
development projects not subject to the Quimby Act, under the authority of the Mitigation
Fee Act that are equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table III‐3.
The City will incur costs to administer the fee program and to prepare the
compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance
requirements are identified in Chapter VII of this Report. The City may add an
administration cost factor to cover the cost of administering the programs and the cost of
compliance with statutory requirements.
CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The South San Francisco General Plan establishes a standard of 0.5 acres per one‐
thousand new employees in the City. The East of 101 Area Plan reaffirms this goal and
standard for that particular commercial area.
Fees on commercial projects are typically applied per one‐thousand square feet of
building space. The number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
23
varies among commercial uses. The City of South San Francisco provided the data for the
number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space, as cited in Table III‐4.
Table III‐4 calculates the park land acreage required per one‐thousand square feet
of new commercial building space by multiplying the number of employees per one‐
thousand square feet by the acreage required per employee ( 0.5 acres per one‐thousand
employees is equal to .0005 acres per employee).
Table III‐4: Park Land Acreage Required per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Employees per
1,000 Square Feet
Park Land Acres
Required per
Employee
Park Land Acres
Required per 1,000
Square Feet
Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 acres .00125 acres
Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 acres .00119 acres
Office/R&D 2.22 .0005 acres .00111 acres
Industrial 1.05 .0005 acres .00052 acres
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Municipal Resource
Group LLC
CALCULATION OF THE COMMERCIAL FEE
The commercial Park Land Acquisition Fee is based on the amount of land required
to meet the applicable park land standard (Table III‐4) and the market value of land. As
discussed in Chapter II, the average market value of vacant land in South San Francisco is
estimated to be $3,000,000 per acre.
Table III‐5 calculates the fee per one‐thousand square feet of commercial space by
multiplying the required acres per 1,000 square feet (from Table III‐4) by the $3,000,000
market value per acre.
Table III‐5: Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition Fee per One‐thousand Square Feet of
Commercial Space
Classification Park Land Acres per
1,000 Square Feet
Market Value of Land
per Acre
Fee per 1,000 Square
Feet
Commercial/Retail .00125 acres $3,000,000 $3,750
Hotel/Visitor .00119 acres $3,000,000 $3,571
Office/R&D .00111 acres $3,000,000 $3,333
Industrial .00052 acres $3,000,000 $1,571
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Dana Property Analysis;
Municipal Resource Group LLC
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
24
The City may adopt Park Land Acquisition Fees under the Mitigation Fee Act for
commercial development projects that are equal to, or below the amounts identified in
Table III‐5.
The City will incur costs to administer the fee program and to prepare the
compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance
requirements are identified in Chapter VII of this Report. The City may add an
administration cost factor to cover the cost of administering the programs and the cost of
compliance with statutory requirements.
AB 1600 NEXUS
The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency considering an action
establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to address the following procedural requirements.
1. Identify the purpose of the fee.
The purpose of the Park Land Acquisition Fee is to provide funding to achieve the
City’s goal of maintaining park service levels and to provide adequate recreational
services for South San Francisco residents and employees, as established in the
General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan.
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.
The proceeds from the fees will be used to acquire three acres of park land per one‐
thousand future residents and 0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees, as
identified in the City’s General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East
of 101 Area Plan.
3. Identify the relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on
which the fee is imposed.
The fee will be applied to residential development projects and commercial
development projects that are not subject to the City’s Quimby Act park land
dedication or in‐lieu fee requirements. New residents in residential developments
and new employees will place an additional demand on park and recreational
facilities. The park land acquired with the proceeds of the fee will address and
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
25
mitigate the additional impacts and demands created by these residential and
commercial development projects.
4. Determine the relationship between the need for the community facility and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed.
The fee will be applied to residential development projects and commercial
development projects, which generate new residents and new employees in the
community. The park land will serve the needs of new residents in residential
development projects and new employees in commercial development projects.
5. Determine the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
community facility or portion of the community facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
The fee has been calculated by apportioning the cost of park land acquisition to the
number of residents generated by each type of new residential unit and the number
of employees per one‐thousand square feet in commercial development projects.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
26
IV. PARK CONSTRUCTION FEE
______________________________________________________________________________
City of South San Francisco park goals include the development of three acres of
parks for each one‐thousand future residents and 0.5 acres of parks for each one‐thousand
new employees. While the Quimby Act In‐lieu Fee and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land
Acquisition Fee will provide funds for the acquisition of park land, the proposed Park
Construction Fee discussed in this Chapter would provide funds for the construction of park
facilities and improvements on the land acquired with the proceeds from the other fees.
This Chapter provides the analysis and findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act to
establish a fee for the construction of park facilities and improvements on acquired park
land.
CALCULATION OF THE PARK ACREAGE TO BE IMPROVED PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT
The acreage to be improved with park facilities to serve residential development is
the same acreage as established for park land acquisition: three acres per one‐thousand
future residents.
Table IV‐1, using the same factors as in Table II‐2, calculates the amount of acreage
to be improved (park acreage construction) for the benefit of residential units by
multiplying the park acres per resident by the residents per unit.
Table IV‐1: Park Acres to be Improved per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Acres per
Resident
Residents per
Unit
Park Acres to be
Improved per
Residential Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.003 3.45 0.01035
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.003 2.98 0.00894
5 to 19 0.003 2.53 0.00759
20 to 49 0.003 2.04 0.00612
50 or more 0.003 1.78 0.00534
Mobile home 0.003 2.65 0.00795
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Municipal Resource Group LLC
CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT
The Park Construction Fee is based on the amount of land required to be improved
(Table IV‐1) and the cost of constructing park facilities and improvements.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
27
The General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan include a policy to maintain a
three acre standard of community and neighborhood parks per one‐thousand residents and
one‐half acre per one‐thousand employees, and describes the facilities that should be
included in community and neighborhood parks. While individual park construction
projects will differ in the type of park facilities and construction costs, a representative per
acre construction cost estimate has been prepared by Group 4 Architecture, Research +
Planning, Inc., for the purpose of calculating the Park Construction Fee. Attachment 2
identifies the representative park facilities and improvements and the cost per acre. The
average construction (hard) cost per acre is $785,000. Soft costs, such as design,
construction management and permitting costs, are estimated at 20% to 30% of hard
construction costs. This Report assumes a mid‐point of 25% for soft costs. Accordingly,
hard construction costs and soft costs are estimated at $981,250 per acre.
Table IV‐2 calculates the Park Construction Fee per residential unit by multiplying
the required acres per unit (from Table IV‐1) by the $981,250 park construction cost per
acre.
Table IV‐2: Park Construction Fee per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Park Acres per
Unit
Construction Cost
per Acre Fee per Unit
1 (single‐family residential unit) 0.01035 $981,250 $10,156
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) 0.00894 $981,250 $ 8,772
5 to 19 0.00759 $981,250 $ 7,448
20 to 49 0.00612 $981,250 $ 6,005
50 or more 0.00534 $981,250 $ 5,240
Mobile home 0.00795 $981,250 $ 7,801
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Park + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Group 4 Architecture, Research +
Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC
The City may adopt Park Construction Fees under the Mitigation Fee Act for
residential development projects that are equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table
IV‐2.
The City will incur costs to administer the fee program and to prepare the
compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance
requirements are identified in Chapter VII of this Report. The City may add an
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
28
administration cost factor to cover the cost of administering the programs and the cost of
compliance with statutory requirements.
CALCULATION OF THE PARK ACREAGE TO BE IMPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The South San Francisco General Plan establishes a standard of 0.5 acres per one‐
thousand new employees in the City. The East of 101 Area Plan reaffirms this goal and
standard for that particular commercial area.
Fees on commercial projects are typically applied per one‐thousand square feet of
building space. The number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space
varies among commercial uses. The South San Francisco General Plan provides the data for
the number of employees per one‐thousand square feet of building space, as cited in Table
IV‐3, below.
Table IV‐3 calculates the park land acreage required to be improved per one‐
thousand square feet of new commercial building space by multiplying the employees per
one‐thousand square feet by the acreage required per employee (0.5 acres per one‐
thousand employees is equal to .0005 acres per employee).
Table IV‐3: Park Acres to be Improved per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Employees per
1,000 Square Feet
Park Acres Required
per Employee
Acres to be Improved
per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial/Retail 2.50 .0005 acres .00125 acres
Hotel/Visitor 2.38 .0005 acres .00119 acres
Office/R&D 2.22.0005 acres .00111 acres
Industrial 1.05 .0005 acres .00052 acres
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Park + Recreation
Master Plan; Municipal Resource Group LLC
CALCULATION OF THE COMMERCIAL FEE
The park construction fee is based on the amount of land required to be improved
(Table IV‐3) and the cost of constructing park facilities and improvements. As discussed
above, hard construction costs and soft costs are estimated at $981,250 per acre.
Table IV‐4 calculates the fee per one‐thousand square feet of commercial space by
multiplying the required acres per unit (from Table IV‐3) by the $981,250 construction cost
per acre.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
29
Table IV‐4: Park Construction Fee per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Park Acres per 1,000
Square Feet
Construction Cost
per Acre
Fee per 1,000 Square
Feet
Commercial/Retail .00125 acres $981,250 $1,227
Hotel/Visitor .00119 acres $981,250 $1,168
Office/R&D .00111 acres $981,250 $1,090
Industrial .00052 acres $981,250 $ 514
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element, page 55; Park + Recreation
Master Plan; Architecture, Research + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC
The City may adopt Park Construction Fees under the Mitigation Fee Act for
commercial development projects that are equal to, or below the amounts identified in
Table IV‐4.
AB 1600 NEXUS
The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency considering an action
establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to address the following procedural requirements.
1. Identify the purpose of the fee.
The purpose of the Park Construction Fee is to provide funding to achieve the City’s
goal of maintaining park service levels and to provide adequate recreational
services for South San Francisco residents and employees, as established in the
General Plan, the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan.
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.
The proceeds from the fees will be used to construct park facilities and
improvements on three acres of park land per one‐thousand future residents and
0.5 acres per one‐thousand new employees, as identified in the City’s General Plan,
the Parks + Recreation Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan.
3. Determine the relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project
on which the fee is imposed.
The fee will be applied to residential development projects and commercial
development projects. New residents in residential developments and new
employees will place an additional demand on park and recreational facilities. The
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
30
park facilities and improvements constructed with the proceeds of the fee will
address and mitigate the additional impacts and demands created by these
residential and commercial development projects.
4. Determine the relationship between the need for the community facility and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed.
The fee will be applied to residential development projects and commercial
development projects, which generate new residents and employees in the
community. The park facilities and improvements will serve the needs of new
residents in residential development projects and new employees in commercial
development projects.
5. Determine the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
community facility or portion of the community facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
The fee has been calculated by apportioning the cost of constructing park facilities
and improvements to the number of residents generated by each type of new
residential unit and the number of employees per one‐thousand square feet in
commercial development projects.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
31
V. PARK ACQUISITION AND PARK CONSTRUCTION FEES SUMMARY
______________________________________________________________________________
Table V‐1 presents the proposed Park Land Acquisition Fees (Quimby Act and
Mitigation Fee Act) and the Park Construction Fees for residential units. The City may adopt
fees equal to, or below the amounts identified in Table V‐1.
Table V‐1: Total Park Fees per Residential Unit
Units in Structure Park Land
Acquisition Fee
Park
Construction Fee Total Park Fees
1 (single‐family residential unit) $31,050 $10,156 $41,206
2 to 4 (duplex to four‐plex) $26,820 $ 8,772 $35,592
5 to 19 $22,770 $ 7,448 $30,218
20 to 49 $18,360 $ 6,005 $24,365
50 or more $16,020 $ 5,240 $21,260
Mobile home $23, 850 $ 7,801 $31,651
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American FactFinder, Table B25124; Dana Property Analysis; Group 4
Architecture + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC
Table V‐2 presents the proposed Park Land Acquisition Fees and the Park
Construction Fees for commercial developments. The City may adopt fees equal to, or
below the amounts identified in Table V‐2.
Table V‐2: Total Park Fees per One‐thousand Square Feet of Commercial Space
Classification Park Land Acquisition
Fee
Park Construction
Fee
Total Park
Fees
Commercial/Retail $3,750 $1,227 $4,977
Hotel/Visitor $3,571 $1,168 $4,739
Office/R&D $3,333 $1,090 $4,423
Industrial $1,571 $ 514 $2,085
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan and Parks + Recreation Master Plan; United States
Census Bureau, 2014 American Fact Finder, Table 25124; Dana Property Analysis; Group 4
Architecture + Planning Inc.; Municipal Resource Group LLC
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
32
VI. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
One of the challenges in administering a mitigation fee program is that the cost of
land and the cost of construction may continue to change over time, while the fees remain
static, unless reviewed annually by the public agency. Many public agencies address this by
including an annual fee adjustment in the resolution adopting the fees.
LAND VALUE ADJUSTMENT
Several different methods can be used to adjust park land values and park land
acquisition fees. Some agencies conduct an annual market valuation of land and apply the
percentage change in land costs to the fees. Others conduct an Assessor's Office records
research for recent land sales, as compared to prior year land sales. Still others use
publicized indices, such as a consumer price index or the Data Quick Information Systems’
change in median purchase prices.
This Report recommends the use of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer
Price Index, All Urban Consumers, San Francisco‐Oakland‐San Jose (AUC‐CPI) for an annual
adjustment. It is recommended that the Quimby Act In‐lieu Fees and the Mitigation Fee Act
Park Land Acquisition Fees be adjusted annually by the AUC‐CPI
It is also recommended that a market valuation of land be prepared every five years
to validate and adjust the Quimby Act In‐Lieu Fees and the Mitigation Fee Act Park Land
Acquisition Fees.
CONSTRUCTION COST ADJUSTMENT
Several different methods can be used to adjust construction costs and Park
Construction Fees. This Report recommends that the fees be adjusted by the Engineering
News Record ‐ Construction Cost Index (ENR‐CCI) on an annual basis. The ENR‐CCI is a
twenty‐city average of construction labor and materials costs. The ENR‐CCI is similar to a
consumer price index, but one that is designed to reflect changing construction costs.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
33
VII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
______________________________________________________________________________
The City of South San Francisco may add a factor to the fees to cover the cost of
compliance with applicable statutes. The compliance requirements are summarized in this
Chapter.
THE MITIGATION FEE ACT
The Mitigation Fee Act imposes certain administrative requirements on local
agencies. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66005(a) of the Act, a City is authorized to
recover the full cost of providing services that are funded by the mitigation fees. This
includes recovery of administrative fees incurred in compliance with the Act. The
procedural and administrative requirements include the following:
1. Analysis required to enact or modify a fee:
In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of
a development project, the City shall cause a report to be prepared and make findings as
follows:
Identify the purpose of the fee.
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type
of development project on which the fee is imposed.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee
and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
2. Notice and conduct a public hearing:
Prior to adopting an ordinance, resolution, or other legislative enactment adopting a
new fee or approving an increase in an existing fee, the City shall hold a public hearing, at
which time oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled
meeting. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the
matter to be considered, shall be published.
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
34
3. Accounting requirements
The City shall deposit the fees in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a
manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the City, and
expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee is collected. Any interest income
earned by money in the capital facilities account or fund shall also be deposited in that
account or fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was originally
collected.
4. Annual reporting requirements; public hearing
For each separate account or fund established, the City shall, within 180 days after
the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the
fiscal year:
A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.
The amount of the fee.
The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund, the amount of the fees
collected and the interest earned.
An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the
amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of
the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if it is determined that sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement.
A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund,
including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be
expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be
repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.
The amount of refunds made.
The City shall review this information at the next regularly scheduled public
meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public. Notice
of the time and place of the meeting, including the address where this information may be
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
35
reviewed, shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who
files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting.
5. Five year reporting requirements; public hearing
For the fifth fiscal year following the first receipt of fees, and every five years
thereafter, the City shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the
account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it
is charged.
Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing for
incomplete improvements.
Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to above is expected
to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
For purposes of these findings, the City shall hold a public hearing, at which oral or
written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice
of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to
be considered, shall be published.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
The Mitigation Fee Act provides that the City may adopt a capital improvement plan
to identify the location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or
improvements to be financed with the fees. The capital improvement plan shall be adopted
by, and shall be annually updated by a resolution of the City Council adopted at a noticed
public hearing. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation
of the matter to be considered, shall be published. In addition, mailed notice shall be given
to any city or county which may be significantly affected by the capital improvement plan.
THE QUIMBY ACT
In addition to the analysis, notice, hearing, accounting and reporting requirements
of the Mitigation Fee Act, the Quimby Act (as codified in the California Government Code,
beginning with Section 66477) adds additional requirements that must be addressed by the
City. The City must adopt an ordinance meeting the following requirements:
Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report March 2016
Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees
36
The ordinance must be in effect for 30 days prior to the filing of a tentative map for a
subdivision subject to the dedication or in‐lieu fee requirement.
The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the proportion of a
subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the in‐lieu fee. The amount of land to
be dedicated and the fee must be based upon the density of each residential type.
The park area per one‐thousand residents must be derived from the ratio that the
existing amount of park area bears to the existing population. A minimum ratio of
three acres per one‐thousand residents is permitted where the existing ratio is less
than three acres per one‐thousand residents.
The City must also assure that the following conditions are met:
The dedicated land, and the fees, may only be used for developing new parks or
rehabilitating existing parks.
The City must have an adopted general plan or specific plan containing policies and
standards, and the park and recreational facilities must be in accordance with
definite principles and standards.
The amount and location of land to be dedicated and the fees to be paid must bear a
reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities for the
future inhabitants of the subdivision.
A schedule must be developed specifying how, when, and where the City will use the
land or fees to develop park and recreational facilities.
Fees collected must be committed within five years of payment, or the issuance of
one‐half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later.
If the fees are not committed within the applicable time frames, they must be
distributed to the then owners of record.
g:\15463-01 ssf park fees update\m-memos\m21 clt\m002-3 costs 18.docx
MEMORANDUM GROUP 4
ARCHITECTURE
RESEARCH +
PLANNING, INC
211 LINDEN AVENUE
SO. SAN FRANCISCO
CA 94080 USA
T:6508710709
F:6508717911
www.g4arch.com
JONATHAN HARTMAN
ARCHITECT
DAWN E. MERKES
ARCHITECT
DAVID SCHNEE
ARCHITECT
JILL EYRES
ARCHITECT
ANDREA GIFFORD
ARCHITECT
WILLIAM LIM
ARCHITECT
2 October 2015
Tom Sinclair
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP
675 Hartz Avenue, Suite 300
Danville CA 95602
PROJECT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES UPDATE
SENT VIA
E-Mail:
TOPIC
PARK CONSTRUCTION BUDGETS
This memorandum describes the methodology and recommendation for capital budgeting
for future park construction as part of Municipal Resource Group’s park development
impact fee update study for the City of South San Francisco.
RECOMMENDATION
We are recommending a budget of approximately $18 per square foot, or approximately
$785,000 per acre for park construction. As discussed in more detail below, these
numbers are for construction only, and do not include soft costs.
METHODOLOGY
Scope of Park Construction
This study considers only future parks in South San Francisco; operations and
maintenance costs for current and future parks are ineligible. The City’s 2015 Parks +
Recreation Master Plan identified specific future park needs. Of these proposed projects,
the only one with any level of documented planning is the proposed expansion of Orange
Memorial Park, which is described in the 2007 Orange Memorial Park Master Plan
Update. To date, no formal planning has been done for the other projects proposed in the
City’s 2015 Parks + Recreation Master Plan.
On July 31, 2015, I met with Sharon Ranals and Samantha Haimovitch of the City’s
Parks and Recreation Department to review potential development strategies for future
parks. The purpose was not to develop a specific construction scope for each park, but to
discuss the types of activities that these parks should support and the associated amenities
that would be needed to support those activities.
Based on this discussion, the following projects were selected as generally representative
of the level/intensity of development that South San Francisco anticipates for future
parks. These parks and their general scope of amenities/ improvements served as the
foundation of the construction budget for future parks.
2 October 2015 Tom Sinclair Memorandum Page 2
Sample Parks Used for Cost Model Park Type Acres
1. Orange Memorial Park Expansion community park 7.6
2. El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Park community park 9.1
3. Downtown Park neighborhood park 2.0
4. East of 101 Park neighborhood park 2.0
5. Sunshine Gardens Elementary playlot
(on SSFUSD property)
0.5
6. Linden & Armour Park mini park 0.3
7. Miller Avenue Playlot playlot/mini park 0.4
8. Railroad Avenue Linear Park linear park 7.5
9. Lindenville Linear Park linear park 1.6
10. PG&E Corridor Park linear park 4.0
11. SFPUC/Elkwood Linear Park linear park 0.4
Total Acres Used in Analysis 35.4
Park Construction Cost Model
Costs for park construction were generally developed on a per-unit basis. Reference
materials included City-provided data on recent park construction projects (such as the
2014-2015 improvements at Buri Buri Park, Clay Avenue Playground, Francisco Terrace
Playlot, and Winston Manor #1 Park); anticipated construction costs for development of
Brentwood Park (currently in design); and the anticipated costs for projects identified in
the 2015 South San Francisco Parks Deferred Maintenance Assessment. These unit costs
were adjusted as needed to include contractor overhead and profit and for escalation to
2015 as appropriate. For perspective, we also connected with some of the landscape
consultants with whom we work regularly to review the trends they’re seeing in park
construction costs in the Bay Area and Northern California.
The amenities planned for selected future parks were quantified and totaled, and the unit
costs were applied to each, as follows:
Amenity
Quantity
Cost/
Cost Range
Extended
Cost
Diamond fields 2 fields $275,000/each $550,000
Soccer/rectangular fields (including lights) 2 fields $310,000/each $620,000
Basketball/hard courts 1 court $55,000/each $55,000
BBQ area 3 areas $80,000/each $240,000
Play equipment (including base/footing, etc.) 8 structures $350,000/each $2,100,000
Small park building (e.g., restroom, concessions) 5 buildings $200,000/each $1,000,000
Site demolition/preparation ~950,000 SF $4-$5/SF $3,990,000
Site equipment – benches, water fountains, etc. ~950,000 SF $0.5-$1/SF $670,000
Hardscape – parking, walkways, plazas, etc. ~110,000 SF $10-$25/SF $1,590,000
Landscaping (including irrigation, drainage, etc.) ~550,000 SF $4-10/SF $2,120,000
Linear park (inclusive of all developments) ~590,000 SF $15/SF $8,850,000
Subtotal $21,400,000
Design contingency* 15% $3,210,000
Construction contingency** 10% $2,140,000
Construction Budget for 11 sample parks ~$16/SF $26,750,000
* design contingency to allow for development of the program and design at individual future parks
** construction contingency to accommodate unforeseen issues/changes during construction
2 October 2015 Tom Sinclair Memorandum Page 3
The budget model also includes an allowance of $4.5 million for improvements at the
Terra Bay, Sign Hill, and Skyline open space amenities proposed in the 2015 Parks +
Recreation Master Plan, which represents approximately $2 per square foot in addition
to the per-square-foot construction budget for parks.
Together, the total amount represents an estimate of what these future parks and open
space projects would cost to build today. Dividing the total construction cost by the
combined total park development area resulted in the recommended construction cost per
square foot and per acre.
DISCUSSION
These estimates are for construction only. They include allowances for general
conditions, contractor overhead and profit, and design and construction contingencies.
They do not include design fees or other soft costs (which could be budgeted at 20%-30%
of construction), escalation beyond 2015, land acquisition, surveying, geotechnical
services, hazardous materials abatement, project management services, construction
management services, etc.
The absence of detailed scope for most of the proposed future park projects is a factor in
this methodology. In some cases, land for the proposed future parks has not yet been
identified or acquired. The contingencies we have built into this cost model should
accommodate minor variations in project size and development scope as the City moves
forward with individual projects.
Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss our methodology.
Jill Eyres
Associate
JE/s
Development Impact Mitigation Fee Analysis
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for the City of
South San Francisco
Prepared by
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Phone: (916) 361-8384
www.mbakerintl.com
Draft Report: May 22, 2017
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ....................................................................i
List of Tables ..........................................................................ii
Executive Summary ...............................................................1
Background and Study Objectives ..................................................... 1
Population Projections ....................................................................... 1
Fee Schedules and Revenues .............................................................. 2
Funds Needed to Complement the Fee Program ............................. 4
Fee Comparisons ................................................................................ 4
Additional Considerations .................................................................. 6
1. Introduction ..................................................................8
Public Facilities Financing in California ............................................ 8
Mitigation Fee Act and Required Findings ....................................... 9
Organization of the Report .............................................................. 10
Facility Standards, Level of Service, and Deficiencies ................... 11
2. Growth Projections ................................................... 13
Introduction ...................................................................................... 13
Occupancy Rates ............................................................................... 13
Population, Housing, and Employment Estimates ........................ 14
Land Use Categories ......................................................................... 15
Service Parameters ............................................................................ 15
3. Citywide Sewer Capacity .......................................... 17
Sewer Generation .............................................................................. 17
Sewer System Asset Value ................................................................ 17
Sewer System Improvements ........................................................... 17
Sewer System Cost Allocations ........................................................ 22
Sewer Capacity Charges .................................................................... 22
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
ii
4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ........................ 24
Bicycle Master Plan Improvements ................................................. 24
Bicycle Master Plan Fee Schedule .................................................... 27
5. Implementation .......................................................... 28
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process .......................................... 28
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP ....................... 28
Funds Needed to Complement Impact Fee Program .................... 28
Inflation Adjustment ........................................................................ 28
Combining Fees ................................................................................ 29
Compliance Requirements................................................................ 29
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES1.1: Population, Employment, and Housing Projections .................................................... 2
Table ES.2: Summary of Current Development Impact Fees .......................................................... 3
Table ES.3: Total Proposed Impact Fee Revenues ........................................................................... 4
Table ES.4: Comparison of Impact Fees in Selected Bay Area Communities .............................. 5
Table 2.1: Occupancy Assumptions ................................................................................................ 12
Table 2.2: Population, Housing, and Employment Projections ..................................................... 13
Table 3.1: Citywide Sewer Capacity Demand by Existing and New Development .................. 16
Table 3.2: Sewer System Valuation .................................................................................................. 17
Table 3.3: Sewer System CIP Projects ............................................................................................... 18
Table 3.4: Sewer System Cost Allocation per EDU ......................................................................... 19
Table 3.5: Sewer System Capacity Fee Schedule ......................................................................... 20
Table 4.1: Recommended Bicycle Master Plan Improvements.................................................... 22
Table 4.2: City wide Average Daily trips ......................................................................................... 23
Table 4.3: Bicycle Master Plan Improvement Costs per ADT ........................................................ 24
Table 4.4: Bicycle Master Plan Impact Fee Schedule .................................................................... 25
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the cost of public facilities to accommodate new
development in South San Francisco. This report documents the justifiable impact fee that could
be imposed on new development in accordance with state law in the following facility
categories:
• Citywide Sewer Capacity
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
For over 30 years, the City of South San Francisco has used impact fees to assist in funding public
improvements that are needed to serve new development in the city. The City adopted its first
impact fee program in 1984. All of the fee programs were adopted based on findings
established in fee nexus studies over the years. .
Like many cities in California, the City of South San Francisco has faced increasing challenges to
funding public facilities to accommodate growth. Since the passage of Proposition 13, property
tax revenues have been insufficient for capital funding, and federal and state assistance has not
replaced the decline in local revenue sources. These funding shortfalls have caused declining
facility standards (i.e., the ratio of facility capacity to service population), which has
accelerated the rate of physical deterioration, increased operating costs, and reduced the
efficiency of many departments. Given these funding difficulties and in the face of continued
growth, the City requires new development to pay fees to fund the facilities necessary to
provide City services.
This study documents the relationship between new development in South San Francisco and
the cost of public facilities to serve growth through the year 2040. The study also provides
estimates of the cost of facilities necessary for growth and calculates the updated public
facilities fees by land use type that would generate revenues equal to these costs. The estimates
of public facilities required to serve growth assume that new development will provide facilities
that, at a minimum, ensure the City will maintain its current level of service standards for these
facilities.
The City will rely on its authority to levy public facilities fees under the police powers granted by
the California Constitution pursuant to the procedures of the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in
Government Code Section 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary documentation for
the adoption of updated public facilities fees.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The population and employment projections to the year 2040 used in this analysis are
summarized in Table ES.1. The projections are based on Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) forecasts for the City of South San Francisco.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
2
Table ES.1: Population, Employment, and Housing Projections
2017 2040 Net Growth
Average
Annual
Growth Rate
Population a, b 64,585 74,600 10,015 0.63%
Employment c
Commercial/Retail 3,544 4,361 817 0.77%
Office/Professional/Service 21,751 38,937 17,185 7.51%
Hotel/Visitor Services 5,157 6,346 1,189 4.2%
Public, Government, Schools 1,398 1,622 304 0.39%
Manufacturing, Construction,
Wholesale 32,170 27,710 (5,000) (1.28%)
Others, including home workers 1,965 2,418 453 1.81%
Total Employment 65,907 81,100 14,948
Housing d Single-Family Units 14,606 16,942 2,336 Multi-Family Units 5,267 6,107 840 Mobile Homes 304 351 47 Total Occupied Units 20,177 23,400 3,223 0.65%
Occupancy 3.20 3.19 3.11
FEE SCHEDULES AND REVENUES
Table ES.2 summarizes the schedule of current impact fees charged by the City for new
development. Total fee revenues in the year 2040 (in constant 2017 dollars) for all facility
categories are summarized in Table ES.3.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee
Update
May 2017 Draft Report
3
Table ES.2: Summary of All Current Development Impact Fees
Facility Category Single-Family
Duplex to
Four-plex
Medium Density
(5 to 19 units or
8.1 to 18
units/acre)
High Density
(20 to 49
units, or 18.1
units or
more/acre)
Highest
Density (50
or more
units)
Mobile
Home/Other
Residential
a. Park Impact Fees for construction and acquisition
b. Current park-in-lieu fee (Quimby Act fee) based on 0.003 acres per resident required to be dedicated and average household occupancies per the MC 19.24.040:
3.45 per single family home, 2.98 residents per unit in a duplex to four-plex, 2.53 per unit in a structure with 5 to 19 units, 2.04 per unit in a structure with 20-49 units, 1.78 in
a structure with 50 or more and 2.65 per mobile home. The acres to be dedicated is multiplied by fthe average fair market value of land in the City. The FMV was given
as $3,000,000 per acre in the Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report, by Municipal Resource Group, LLC, March,
2016.
Citywide Impact Fees
Child Care $1,979.00 N/A $1,858.00 $1,851.00 N/A $768.00
Public Safety $1,285.00 N/A $810.00 $563.00 N/A N/A
Sewer Capacity $3,944.00 $2,997.44 $2,997.44 $2,997.44 $2,997.44 $2,326.96
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Park Facilitiesa
Impact Fee (nonsubdivision)$20,602.97 $17,796.19 $15,108.84 $12,182.63 $10,629.94 $15,825.47
Park in-lieu (Quimby Act, subdivisions)b $31,050.00 $26,820.00 $22,770.00 $18,360.00 $16,020.00 $23,850.00
Area Impact Fees
Oyster Point Interchange N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Traffic Impact East of Hwy 101 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sewer Impact East of Hwy 101 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total Impact Fee for Non-subdivision $27,811 $20,794 $20,774 $17,594 $13,627 $18,920
Total Impact Fee for Subdivision $38,258 $29,817 $28,435 $23,771 $19,017 $26,945
Fee per Dwelling Unit
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee
Update
May 2017 Draft Report
4
Table ES.3: Total Proposed Impact Fee Revenues
Facility Category
Projected
Revenues from
Potential Impact
Fees
General Fund/Other
Sources a Program Total
Citywide Sewer Capacity $89,964,937 $96,080,302 $186,045,239
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan $1,563,381 $10,389,072 $11,952,453
Total $91,528,318 $106,469,374 $197,997,691
a. Funds identified under General Fund/Other Sources are a City obligation to the program.
FUNDS NEEDED TO COMPLEMENT THE FEE PROGRAM
Government Code Section 66000 prohibits using impact fees to remedy an existing facility
deficiency. Impact fees imposed on new development may pay for two forms of capital
improvements: (1) additional facilities needed to accommodate growth and maintain the
current standard of service, or (2) facilities that provide an increase in the level of service or
standard, if existing development also pays for its fair share of facilities needed to raise the
standard. The analysis contained in this report indicates that for the Parks and Recreation and
Citywide Sewer Capacity Impact categories, existing development would derive a more than
incidental benefit from the capital improvements included in these categories. Therefore,
existing development is obligated to pay for its fair share of the improvements. The impact fee
rates presented in this report for these facilities may be imposed on new development only if
existing development provides the funding necessary to augment existing facilities from sources
other than the impact fee revenues. These funds may come from grants, user fees, taxes, and
assessments imposed on current residents. In the sewer categories (Citywide Sewer Capacity
and East of Highway 101 Sewer Impacts), substantial funding is expected from the sewer
enterprise fund rate revenues for these services. The level of funding required from existing
development is listed under General Fund/Other Sources in Table ES.3. If the entire fee program
as presented herein is adopted, the total amount the City and its current residents would need
to contribute is $106.5 million from sources other than fee revenues in order to provide facilities to
existing residents at the same level of service proposed for new development. The great
majority of this funding is for the City’s sewer infrastructure and represents the capital
replacement costs, including annual depreciation, of the Sewer Enterprise operations and will
be funded by the sewer rates. The recommended sewer system improvements funded, in part,
with Citywide Sewer Capacity Charge revenues, and the new Bicycle Master Plan
improvements will benefit both existing and new development, either improving or maintaining
the current level of service in these areas.
FEE COMPARISONS
The proposed impact fees for similar facilities are compared to the City of South San Francisco’s
current fee schedule and selected cities in San Mateo County and the Bay Area in Table ES.4.
The fees listed are applicable to detached single-family homes and retail development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
5
Table ES.4: Comparison of Impact Fees in Selected Bay Area Communities
City Population
Public
Safety
Parks
Acquisition &
Development
Child
Care
Traffic/
Transportation
Bicycle
Facilities
Sewer
Capacity
Water
Facilities Total
Single-Family Home
San Mateo 102,659 $19,105 $3,422 $5,059 $27,586
San Bruno 45,360 $27,000 $5,828 $32,828
San Carlos 29,008 $23,250 $3,052 $10,811 $37,113
Menlo Park 33,863 $26,000 $3,139 $4,852 $33,991
Half Moon Bay 12,528 $986 $34,174 $6,414 $4,559 $46,133
Redwood City 85,992 $17,100 $1,617 $18,717
Belmont 37,834 $27,089 $27,089
East Palo Alto 30,545 $45,306 $11,967 $57,273
San Francisco 866,583 $30,000 $3,720 $15,960 $120 $49,800
Palo Alto 68,207 $1,031 $60,206 $3,559 $64,796
Average Fee $1,009 $30,923 $3,720 $6,141 $120 $6,564 $4,852 $39,533
South San Francisco
Current 65,000 $1,285 $20,603 $1,979 N/A N/A $3,944 N/A $22,733
Proposed 74,600 $1,285 $29,124 $1,979 N/A $243 $4,786 N/A $37,417
Commercial/Retail (per 1,000 Gross Square Feet)
San Mateo 102,659 $5,893 $2,320 $8,213
San Bruno 45,360 $3,495 $3,495
San Carlos 29,008 $11,323 $5,690 $17,013
Menlo Park 33,863 $4,630 $1,213 $5,843
Half Moon Bay 12,528 $175 $6,737 $1,778 $8,690
Redwood City 85,992 $3,940 $3,940
Belmont 37,834 $360 $360
East Palo Alto 30,545 $2,350 $1,710 $4,060
San Francisco 866,583 $4,340 $1,580 $6,080 $40 $12,040
Palo Alto $576 $5,038 $14,236 $19,850
Average Fee $376 $3,022 $1,580 $6,819 $40 $3,321 $1,213 $8,350
South San Francisco
Current 65,000 $440 N/A $680 $22,700 $1,065 N/A $24,885
Proposed 74,600 $440 $3,517 $680 $22,700 $344 $1,292 N/A $28,973
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
6
The fee comparison table gives a general idea of fees charged for similar facilities in nearby
cities. Even though each local agency in California, in order to adopt impact fees, must follow
the same general principles established by state law, as described in the introduction of this
report, fee comparisons, even among neighboring jurisdictions, tend to vary widely due several
factors:
• The methods used to calculate the impact fees and allocate the fees to types of
development differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
• The types of facilities that are covered by impact fees vary.
• Cities adopt different standards, or levels of service, for facilities and may calculate those
standards in different ways.
• Cities may not have kept up with public improvements over the years and, as a
consequence, have created deficiencies between adopted or desired levels of service
and the levels currently provided. This factor may actually work to reduce the impact
fee, since the costs to remedy the existing deficiencies cannot be passed on to new
development. In South San Francisco, for example, the current police facilities are not
adequate to meet the department’s needs to serve the existing population; the planned
facility expansion must be funded by both new development and the City.
Furthermore, cities may allow alternatives to impact fees to finance public facilities. Assessment
districts and Mello-Roos districts may be used for improvements that serve specific land
development projects. District assessments and special taxes levied to provide public
improvements sometimes replace impact fees that would otherwise be used for those
improvements.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The City at its sole discretion may reduce the recommended impact fees for one or more
categories. However, the recommended fees are established based on the infrastructure
required by new development. By reducing fees, it is inevitable that, over time, there will be a
continued reduction in the levels of service provided by the public facilities funded by the
impact fees, unless other funds are used to replace the fee revenues. Alternatively, the City may
consider the following ways to reduce the effect the fees may have on land development in the
city, while leaving the fee rates and standards of service intact:
• Phase in the fee increases over two or more years to provide time for the real estate
market to adjust. However, the net loss of revenue during the phase-in period may not
be passed on to future development.
• Defer the impact fees to a later date. The City may elect to grant a deferral of payment
until units are sold or leased. For residential units, impact fees are not payable until the
date of the final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes
first, according to Government Code Section 66007. Notwithstanding state law, it is not
uncommon for cities to collect the fees at issuance of a building permit, which they may
do if certain facility financing requirements are met. These requirements are explained in
Section 11 under Compliance Requirements, Collection of Fees, of this report. If the City
chooses to defer impact fees to a point in time after issuance of a building permit or
certificate of occupancy, suitable security should be obtained to ensure future payment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
7
of the fee, through a surety bond, letter of credit, provisions in the escrow agreements, or
a lien hold as appropriate.
Fee Updates
The impact fee revenues projected in this study and the recommended improvements to be
funded by the fees assume a given level of development activity over the study period. The
development that actually occurs will result in a different level of cumulative impacts and fee
revenues than those projected in this study. Consequently, a different set of improvements
would be funded than what is described in this report. More or less improvements would need to
be constructed consistent with the development that actually occurs. For that reason, regular
updates are recommended to adjust the growth impact fee to match the needs created by
actual development.
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
8
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents an analysis of the need and related cost of public facilities to accommodate
new development in South San Francisco. This section explains the study approach and
summarizes results under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California
• Mitigation Fee Act and Required Findings
• Organization of the Report
• Facility Standards, Level of Service, and Deficiencies
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past three decades has steadily undercut
the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure needed for growth. Three
dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and
continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996
• Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next
generation of residents and businesses
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to shift the burden of funding
infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers to new development. This
funding shift has been partly accomplished by the imposition of development impact fees, also
known as public facility, capital facility, and mitigation fees. A key advantage of this approach
in an era of voter approval requirements is that impact fees are not taxes and are thus exempt
from the requirements of Proposition 218, needing only a majority vote of the legislative body for
adoption.
Some fee programs address only a few specific facilities, such as traffic, fire, or storm drainage.
Other programs are comprehensive, funding a variety of facility categories, from parks and
recreation improvements to expanding or refurbishing city office space to meet the needs of
future growth.
In most local agencies that have implemented impact fee programs, new development pays
close to the full cost required to maintain existing level of service standards as growth occurs. If
local agencies do not collect the full amount, the effect is often a decline in facility standards,
though some communities are able to increase other revenue sources to compensate. In
another rather typical situation, a city’s general plan may state that, as a policy, a certain level
of service should be attained for a particular facility. However the current level of service for that
facility is less than the stated general plan policy. In that event the city will have, in effect, a
deficiency that it must remedy in order to collect fees from new development commensurate
with the policy standard. The deficiency must be remedied using funds other than impact fee
revenues. New development cannot be required to pay for an increase in the level of service for
1. INTRODUCTION
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
9
the benefit of existing development, unless existing development is committed to paying its
share of the cost.
MITIGATION FEE ACT AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
As a result of the growing use of impact fees after the passage of Proposition 13 and concern
over inconsistencies in their application, the State Legislature passed the Mitigation Fee Act,
starting with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1988. The act, contained in California Government Code
Section 66000 et seq., establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of
impact fee programs. The act became law in April 1989 and requires local governments to
document the following when adopting an impact fee:
1) Identify the purpose of the fee.
2) Identify the use of fee revenues.
3) Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of
development paying the fee.
4) Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of
development paying the fee.
5) Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
facility attributable to development paying the fee.
This report complies with California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. by providing the
required documentation for the above findings and determinations that establish the basis for
imposition of the recommended fees contained herein.
The fundamental premise of the Mitigation Fee Act is that the burden of the impact fees cannot
total more than the actual cost of the public facility needed to serve the development paying
the fee. Also, fee revenues can only be used for their intended purposes. In addition, the act has
specific accounting and reporting requirements, both annually and after every five-year period,
for the use of fee revenues. These requirements are covered in more detail in Section 11 of this
report.
In addition, the impact fee revenues may not be used for staffing, operations, and
maintenance 1 of either existing or new facilities. Routine maintenance that is not related to the
1 Government Code Section 66001(g) states: “A fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing
deficiencies in public facilities, but may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public
facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain
the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general
plan.” GC 65913.8 states: ”A fee, charge, or other form of payment imposed by a governing body of a
local agency for a public capital facility improvement related to a development project may not include
an amount for the maintenance or operation of an improvement when the fee, charge, or other form of
payment is required as a condition of the approval of a development project, or required to fulfill a
condition of the approval.
1. INTRODUCTION
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
10
level of service of a facility, or does not add the capacity needed for new development should
not be funded by the impact fee revenues.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section 2 presents the population and employment assumptions used for the public facilities fee
analysis. Sections 3 and 4are devoted to documenting the maximum justified impact fee for
each of the following facility categories:
• Citywide Sewer Capacity
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (new category)
Citywide Sewer Capacity, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are citywide fee categories.
The sections are generally organized as follows to clearly document the requirements of the
Mitigation Fee Act discussed above.
• Each section begins by identifying the purpose of the fee by stating the types of facilities
that would be funded.
• The existing and where applicable future planned facilities are summarized. The value of
the investment that the existing community has in this type of facility and the cost of
future planned facilities, if any, are identified.
• The Service Population for each facility defines what type of development requires this
type of facility, whether (1) only residents, or (2) residents and businesses (measured by
employment). It also projects the service population growth or demand for facility
capacity anticipated to occur over the planning horizon.
• Standards and unit costs are established for each facility category and a reasonable
relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee.
This analysis leads to a cost per capita for the facilities which is one of the two factors
that determine the fee.
• The total facility costs to accommodate growth establishes a reasonable relationship
between the use of fee revenues and the type of development paying the fee. This
analysis estimates the total facilities costs associated with new development over the
planning horizon, equal to the revenues that would be collected through the impact fee.
• The Fee Schedule establishes a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee
and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee. Using a common
factor for facility costs per capita, the fee schedule ensures that each development
project pays its fair share of total facility costs.
Finally, Section 5 summarizes fee implementation procedures and recommendations for the
ongoing administration of the fee. The recommendations are provided to ensure compliance
with the act and to ensure that fees are updated in the future for construction cost inflation, a
change in the standards, or changes in development assumptions.
1. INTRODUCTION
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
11
FACILITY STANDARDS, LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND DEFICIENCIES
Throughout this report, the words “standard” and “level of service” are used (at times
interchangeably) to describe the level of investment in capital facilities that are needed to serve
the community. A standard is defined as the adopted policy or benchmark that the City would
like to achieve for any particular facility. For example, the number of acres of parks per 1,000
residents required for new development would be a standard. On the other hand, level of
service refers to the actual level of benefit that the current population experiences. Level of
service may be different from the standard for a given facility. When the existing level of service
is lower than the standard, in other words when the facility is over capacity relative to the stated
or policy standard, a deficiency exists for that facility. If the opposite is the case—if there is a
surplus of capacity—the City may recoup a portion of its investment in that facility that is
available to serve new development. Frequently there is no stated policy standard for a given
facility, in which case the existing level of service becomes the de facto “current standard” and
the terms may be interchanged.
New development alone cannot be asked to improve the level of service provided by those
facilities that serve both new and existing development. Additionally, new development alone
cannot correct an existing facility deficiency. Either way, facility standards cannot be increased
compared to the existing level of service solely by imposing impact fees on new development.
By policy, the City of South San Francisco can adopt its own reasonable facility standards to
reduce, maintain, or increase the existing facility standard. However, basing an impact fee on a
standard that is higher than the existing level of service is fair to new development only if the City
were to use alternative funds to increase the capacity in facilities that benefit existing
development. This extra funding is needed to correct the existing deficiency.
There are two approaches or methodologies used in this study for establishing facility standards
and thereby evaluate whether facility deficiencies currently exist. This report follows these
methodologies to evaluate current levels of service and in developing the recommendations for
fee updates and new fees:
• The master plan method establishes the standard based on the ratio of all existing plus
planned facilities to total future demand (current and future development). This method
is used when the local agency anticipates increasing its facility standards above the
existing inventory standard, and planned facilities are part of a system that benefits both
existing and new development. This method typically results in existing deficiencies that
must be funded outside of the impact fee program. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan is most accurately described as a master plan method.
• The engineering standard approach is based on standards adopted by the City and/or
standard engineering or planning criteria. This method is typically used for infrastructure
such as for the sewer Capacity Charge. The basic approach is to maintain the
appropriate level of service as defined by accepted planning and engineering practice
for all sewer collection and treatment facilities. Any costs related to existing deficiencies
are not passed on to new development. The original nexus studies for the Sewer
Capacity fee analysis used this methodology.
Use of these standards in the study is not meant to label them as the City of South San
Francisco’s policy. Indeed, many jurisdictions recognize that their existing levels of service are
deficient compared to the policies stated in their general plans. The City of South San Francisco
1. INTRODUCTION
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
12
may, as a policy decision, raise any facility standard and in doing so, possibly create a
deficiency relative to the existing level of service.
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
13
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Estimates of existing development (number and type of housing) and projections of growth are
used throughout the public facility fee sections that follow in this report. Current residential
population estimates are based on the latest California Department of Finance county/city
estimate dated January 2016. Current employment (jobs in the city as opposed to employed
residents who live in the city but may work elsewhere) are from the Association of Bay Area
Governments’ (ABAG) 2012 Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy forecasts for South San Francisco.
OCCUPANCY RATES
The use of occupancy rates ensures a reasonable relationship between the increase in service
population and the amount of the fee. To do this, the fee must vary by the estimated service
population generated by a particular development project. Developers pay the fee based on
the number of additional housing units or building square feet, so the fee analysis must convert
service population estimates to these measures of project size to derive a fee per unit of
development. This conversion is done with average occupancy factors by land use category, as
shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Occupancy Assumptions
Employees per
1,000 Square
Feet Land Use Occupancy Rate
Residential a
Single-Family, detached & attached 3.38 persons per dwelling unit —
Multi-Family (overall 2 or more units in
structure) 2.54 persons per dwelling unit —
Multi-Family Breakdown
Duplex, triplex & fourplex 2.89 persons per dwelling unit —
5 to 19 units 2.53 persons per dwelling unit —
20 to 49 2.04 persons per dwelling unit —
50+ 1.78 persons per dwelling unit —
Mobile Home 2.00 persons per dwelling unit —
Nonresidential b
Office/Research & Development 450 building square feet per worker 2.22
Commercial/Retail 400 building square feet per worker 1.67
Hotel Rooms 1,500 building square per worker 0.67
Industrial 1,000 building square feet per worker 1.00
a. Based on the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011–2015, Tenure and Units in Structure, Tables
B25033 & B25032, US Census Bureau, adjusted for current occupied units and population.
b. Building area per worker factors are based on the Employment Density Summary Report prepared for the
Southern California Association of Governments by the Natelson Company in 2001.
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
14
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
The 2040 projections for occupied housing, population, and employment are all based on ABAG
forecasts for South San Francisco. The population and housing estimates are summarized in
Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Population, Employment, and Housing Projections
2017 2040 Net Growth
Average
Annual
Growth Rate
Population a, b 64,585 74,600 10,015 0.63%
Employment c
Commercial/Retail 3,544 4,361 817 0.77%
Office/Professional/Service 21,751 38,937 17,185 7.51%
Hotel/Visitor Services 5,157 6,346 1,189 4.2%
Public, Government, Schools 1,398 1,622 304 0.39%
Manufacturing, Construction,
Wholesale 32,170 27,710 (5,000) (1.28%)
Others, including home workers 1,965 2,418 453 1.81%
Total Employment 65,907 81,100 14,948
Housing d Single-Family Units 14,606 16,942 2,336 Multi-Family Units 5,267 6,107 840 Mobile Homes 304 351 47 Total Occupied Units 20,177 23,400 3,223 0.65%
Occupancy 3.20 3.19 3.11
a. Current population estimate is from the California Department of Finance, Demographic
Research Unit, Table E-6, 1/1/2016.
b. Projected population growth (at build-out) from General Plan Chapter 2 – Land Use (includes
4,800 persons from full build-out of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan)
c. Current employment, number of jobs in the City, from 2015 American Fact Finder Economic
Census, all NAICS codes for South San Francisco U.S. Census Bureau. . Employment growth is
based on South San Francisco General Plan.
d. Estimates of households from California Department of Finance, Table E-6; projections of
housing type is based on the current housing composition; the number of total projected
households is the total 2040 population divided by the assumed overall occupancy of 3.19
persons per household.
Much of the employment growth in the city over the next 20 years is expected to occur in the
Office, professional services sector and especially in the Research and Development sector in
the East of Highway 101 area. The employment growth in the various planning sub-areas of the
city is identified in the General Plan. It is noted here that the General Plan forecast of
employment is significantly higher than the number reported in the ABAG Jobs-Housing
Connection Strategy and may reflect the fact that substantial development is expected to
occur in the East of Highway 101 area.
Estimates of future growth are used to provide a rough estimate of the total amount of sewer
capacity required to accommodate growth over the planning horizon. Population and
employment growth estimates are converted into dwelling units and floor area of nonresidential
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
15
development to generate projections of future vehicle trips used in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan fee.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
Measuring the impact of growth requires land use types for summarizing different categories of
new development. The land use types used in this analysis are defined below.
• Single-Family: detached and attached (townhomes and condominiums) one-family
dwelling units
• Multi-Family: dwelling units such as duplexes and condominiums (unless considered
attached townhomes), apartments, and dormitories
• Mobile Homes: includes manufactured housing units located in mobile home parks.
• Commercial/Retail: all commercial services, including food services and retail stores
• Office/Research and Development: all general, professional, and medical office
development including business and research parks
• Hotel/Visitor: hotel and motel development
• Industrial: all manufacturing, fabrication, food processing, motor vehicle repair,
warehousing, truck yards and warehousing terminals, and distribution centers, including
“back-office” uses, and ancillary employee-serving retail and services
Applying the Impact Fees to Development Projects Involving More Than One Land Use
Some developments may include more than one land use category, such as a mixed-use
development with both residential and commercial uses. In these cases, the impact fee would
be calculated separately for each land use category contained within the project.
The amount of impact fees payable should be evaluated prior to the issuance of a building
permit and be based on the information in the permit application, including the number and
type of units, intended occupancy, and floor area per occupancy. In a single-use structure, the
total of the fees would be the sum of each of the products of the fee rate for each facility
category multiplied by the number of units or the floor area (1,000-square-foot increments) in the
structure. For a mixed-use project, wherein more than one use will occupy a single permitted
structure, an impact fee calculation would apply the appropriate fee rate to each portion of
the structure containing an identified use. For a commercial-residential structure, the applicable
residential fee rates would be applied to each residential unit (the unit may be defined as either
a single-family unit or a multi-family unit, depending on the type of construction), and the
applicable nonresidential rates will be applied to each unit of nonresidential floor area.
SERVICE PARAMETERS
Different types of development use public facilities at different rates in relation to each other,
depending on the services provided. In the succeeding sections of this report, a specific service
parameter is identified for each facility type to reflect this. The service parameter is calculated
by weighting one land use category against another based on each category’s demand for
services.
Different service parameters are used to estimate impacts for different types of fees. To measure
existing development and future growth, this reports uses
• Dwelling units and building square feet to estimate sewer capacity
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
16
• Vehicle trips to allocate bicycle and pedestrian facilities costs
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
17
3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY
This section pertains to the collection, treatment, and disposal facilities required to provide
sanitary sewer service to new development in South San Francisco. The City owns and maintains
its entire wastewater collection system and shares a water quality control plant (WQCP) with the
cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame and portions of Colma and Daly City. The total
capacity of the WQCP is 13.0 million gallons per day (mgd). The City of South San Francisco
owns 73.08 percent of the capacity, approximately 9.5 mgd.
The Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis was prepared in 2009 by Bartle Wells Associates. The City
adopted updated sewer capacity fees in April 2010 by Resolution 39-2010. The Resolution was
adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 66013(b)(3) local fees imposed for water and
sewer connections or capacity charges.
SEWER GENERATION
The average wet and dry weather flow in the sanitary sewer system is currently estimated to be
approximately 6 mgd.1 Table 3.1 shows the estimated existing and projected future wastewater
generation by land use. The table converts flows for each land use into equivalent dwelling units
(EDU), using an EDU factor that represents the sewer demand for each land use in terms of one
single-family unit. Average dry weather flow in 2040 is projected to be 9.5 mgd at current
generation rates, which roughly corresponds to the City of South San Francisco’s capacity in the
WQCP.
SEWER SYSTEM ASSET VALUE
The 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis conducted a valuation study of the sewer system at the
time. The valuation study analyzed the current value of all fixed system assets, including the
WQCP, buildings, sewer mains, and manholes. The analysis was conducted using the
replacement cost of new assets less depreciation (RCNLD), which is an industry standard
approach to determining the “buy-in” cost for new development into a system with sufficient
capacity. This method essentially assigns a value in a system that has been maintained by the
current population and may provide service to new development. It is a means of obtaining
revenue to perform continued rehabilitation and refurbishment in order maintain capacity in the
system. The 2009 valuation analysis has been updated for this study and is shown in Table 3.2.
SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The City’s 2016–2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) recommends several improvement
projects that are needed for reconstruction, replacement, and rehabilitation in a number of
areas and to upgrade conditions throughout the system, including the WQCP. Very few of these
improvement projects will provide additional capacity to serve growth, since capacity generally
exists. However many of the projects are necessary to maintain operating conditions in order to
accommodate future development. Table 3.3 lists the CIP projects and costs as estimated in the
CIP. Several of the projects were listed in the 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis, and the costs for
those have been updated to 2017 dollars. Each project has been assigned a fair-share
allocation to new development to represent the project’s benefit to new development. The
percentage fair share is either zero or 37.2 percent, which is the projected capacity needed by
new development. This allocation methodology ensures that new development pays its
1 Daily flow meter from South San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP.
3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
18
proportionate share of the cost of the system improvements that provide a direct benefit to
growth.
3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
19
Table 3.1: Citywide Sewer Capacity Demand by Existing and New Development
Land Use
Existing
Residential,
Units/Non-
residential,
1,000
Square Feet
Growth 2017–
2040 Residential,
Units/Non-
residential Total
EDU
Factor
EDU
2017
EDU
Growth
EDU
2040
Estimated
Current
Gallons
per Day
(average
dry
weather
flow)
Gallons
per Day Growth
(based on EDUs)
Gallons
per Day
2040
Residential (in units)
Single-Family 14,606 2,336 16,942 1.00 14,606 2,336 16,942 2,745,928 439,168 3,185,096
Multi-Family 5,267 840 6,107 0.76 4,003 638 4,641 752,564 119,944 872,508
Mobile homes 304 47 351 0.59 179 28 207 33,652 5,264 38,916
20,177 3,223 23,400
Subtotal 18,788 3,002 21,790 3,532,144 564,376 4,096,520
Nonresidential (in 1,000 square feet of floor area)
Office/R&D 9,788 24,212 34,000 0.27 2,643 6,537 9,180
496,884 1,228,956 1,725,840
Retail/Comm. 1,418 23,582 25,000 0.27 383 6,367 6,750
72,004 1,196,996 1,269,000
Hotel/Visitor 2,192 9,808 12,000 0.40 877 3,923 4,800
164,876 737,524 902,400
Industrial 32,170 (5,000) 27,170 0.27 8,686 (1,350) 7,336
1,632,968 (253,800) 1,379,168
Public 1,318 1,182 2,500 0.27 356 319 675
66,928 59,972 126,900
32,838 15,800 48,638 Subtotal 12,945 15,796 28,741
2,433,660 2,969,648 5,403,308
Total 31,733 18,798 50,531
5,965,804 3,534,024 9,499,828
Percentages of Total EDUs 62.8% 37.2%
3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
20
Sewer Flow Assumptions:
Table 3.2: Sewer System Valuation
Item
Original
Cost
Replacement
Cost (2008)
Replacement
Cost (2017)
Estimated
Accumulated
Depreciation RCNLD
Buildings (SSF share) $16,578,835 $25,719,948 $30,444,308 $7,263,602 $23,180,707
Treatment Facilities $54,997,504 $64,415,995 $76,248,226 $22,076,748 $54,171,478
Infrastructure and Other
Improvements $4,115,038 $5,290,189 $6,261,916 $1,505,284 $4,756,632
Subtotal $75,691,377 $95,426,132 $112,954,450 $30,845,633 $82,108,817
Collection System (sewer main
& manholes) N/A $92,389,904 $109,360,513 $29,864,200 $79,496,314
Total $187,816,036 $222,314,963 $60,709,833 $161,605,130
2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis Valuation: $161,222,000
Residential:Current Growth PPH 2017 population 55.74 gpd/capita
Single-family (1 EDU)*188 gpd/du 188 gpd/du 56 gpd/capita 3.38 64,585 3,600,000 residential
Multi-family 142 gpd/du 142 gpd/du 56 gpd/capita 2.54 2,433,660 nonresidential
Mobile Home 111 gpd/du 111 gpd/du 56 gpd/capita 2.00 6,033,660 total ADWF gallons per day (2016)
* Calibrated flow rates based on flow monitoring report 98.88%
Nonresidential:
Office/R&D
Commercial/Retail
Hotel/Visitor
Industrial/Warehouse
Public/Instit.
Growth increment Estimated average dry weather flow
50 gpd/1,000 sf
50 gpd/1,000 sf
50 gpd/1,000 sf
50 gpd/1,000 sf
75 gpd/1,000 sf
3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
21
Table 3.3: Sewer System CIP Projects
CIP System Improvements (SSF Share)
Estimated Project
Costs (2008)
Estimated
Project Costs
(2017) a, c
Fair-Share
Allocation
Percentage b
Fair-Share Cost to
Growth
WQCP Facility Plan Update $219,500 $259,819 37.2% $96,653 Seismic Upgrades $365,000 $432,045 37.2 $160,721 Reliability Improvements $18,271,000 $21,627,103 37.2 $8,045,282 Cogeneration $2,339,000 $2,768,638 37.2 $1,029,934 Solar/Wind Program $1,315,000 $1,556,545 37.2 $579,035 Recycled Water Project $5,000,000 $5,918,423 37.2 $2,201,653 WQCP Digester & Wet Weather Improvements N/A $28,679,000 37.2 $10,668,588 Plant-wide Industrial Re-coating Program N/A $1,480,100 0.00% $0 Vactor-Sweeper Receiving Station Improvements N/A $570,000 37.2% $212,040 WQCP Maintenance Building Roof Replacement N/A $500,000 0.00% $0 Pump Station No. 9 Variable Frequency Drive Replacement N/A $150,000 0.00% $0 WQCP Secondary Clarifiers No. 1 and 2 Rehab. N/A $890,000 37.2 $331,080 Pump Station No. 2 Upgrade N/A $2,500,000 37.2 $930,000 WQCP Switchgear and Cogeneration Controls Upgrade N/A $680,000 37.2 $252,960 WQCP Effluent Storage Basin Liner Replacement N/A $530,000 0.00% $0 WQCP Solar Photovoltaic System N/A $1,375,000 37.2% $511,500 Recycled Water Financial Feasibility Study N/A $224,800 0.00% $0 WQCP Turbo Blower #2 N/A $952,900 37.2% $354,479 WQCP Flow Monitoring N/A $150,000 0.00% $0 WQCP Web Based Monitoring Projects N/A $296,800 37.2 $110,410 Pump Station #4 Force Main Contingency Pipes-Utah Ave N/A $7,100,000 37.2 $2,641,200 Sodium Hypochlorite Storage Tank Replacement Project N/A $765,000 0.00% $0 Pump Station Renovation $250,000 $295,921 0.00% $0 Force Main Rehabilitation Pump Station 4 $195,000 $230,819 0.00% $0 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
$4,625,800 37.2% $1,720,798 Total Sewer Collection System Improvements* $27,954,500 $84,558,713 $29,846,331
*All costs include engineering, design, construction management, and inspection.
a. Costs are from the 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis and the City of South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program 5-year Summary 2016–2021.
b. Fair-Share Cost Percentage is the proportion of new demand on the sewer collection system represented by growth (projected new EDUs divided by total EDUs
in 2040). Sewer system improvement costs are shared proportionately between new and existing development.
c. Cost inflation factor: ENR Construction 20-City Cost Index San Francisco: December 2008 December 2016
9,781.6 11,578.33 18.37%
3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
22
SEWER SYSTEM COST ALLOCATIONS
The total system cost for capacity to convey and treat the city’s sewage is allocated to the
parameters of flow (gallons), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and total suspended solids (TSS).
The percentage of cost imposed on the capital assets is presented in Table 3.4. The table
combines all costs into a single cost per EDU, the cost to convey and treat the sewage demand
of one single-family household in South San Francisco.
Table 3.4: Sewer System Cost Allocation and Cost per EDU
Capital Assets Value/Costs Cost Parameters
Flow BOD TSS
Buildings (SSF share) $23,180,707 34% 33% 33%
Treatment Facilities $54,171,478 50% 25% 25%
Infrastructure and Other
Improvements $4,756,632 34% 33% 33%
Collection System $79,496,314 95% 0% 5%
$161,605,131 $112,105,932 $22,762,191 $26,737,007
Fair-Share of Assets
(Capacity Buy-in) $60,118,605
Weighted average of cost percentages: 69.37% 14.09% 16.54%
2040 EDUs/Cost per EDU 50,531 $2,218.56 $450.46 $529.12
Fair Share of Sewer System
Improvements $29,846,331 $20,704,484 $4,203,876 $4,937,972
New EDUs/Cost per EDU 18,798 $1,101.42 $223.63 $262.69
Total Fair-Share Cost $89,964,937
Total Parameter Cost per EDU $3,319.98 $674.09 $791.81
Overall Total Cost per EDU $4,785.88
SEWER CAPACITY CHARGES
The justified citywide sewer capacity charge for all land uses is based on the cost per EDU, which
is the fee for a single-family home. The 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis and Resolution 39-2010
provide a methodology to determine the sewer capacity fee for nonresidential development
projects based on the anticipated flow volume and the BOD and TSS components of the
project’s effluent. The following formula was developed to calculate the EDUs of a proposed
project:
EDUs = (0.00347 × Flow) + (0.362 × BOD) + (0.589 × TSS)
Flow is in gallons per day, and BOD and TSS are in milligrams per liter (mg/l). The coefficients of
flow, BOD, and TSS in the formula are based on a single-family flow rate of 200 gallons per day,
0.39 pounds per day of BOD, and 0.28 pounds per day of TSS. The coefficients were determined
by dividing the weighted average percentage of the cost of the parameters by the single-family
parameters:
Flow BOD TSS
Weighted Average of Cost Percentages: 0.694 0.141 0.165
Divided by the Single-Family Parameters: 200 gpd 0.39 lbs./day 0.28 lbs./day
Coefficients of EDU Formula: 0.00347 0.362 0.589
3. CITYWIDE SEWER CAPACITY
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
23
For example, a 10,000-square-foot office building is expected to generate an average of 2,000
gallons of effluent per day and 3 pounds per day and 2 pounds per day of BOD and TSS per
day, respectively. The calculated EDUs for this project are: (2,000 × 0.00347) + (3 × .362) + (2 ×
.589) = 9.204. The fee would therefore be $44,049.24 (9.204 x $4,785.88). The fee schedule in Table
3.5 is given as a comparison as to how the justified EDU fee calculated in this study compares to
the current EDU fee for various land uses.
It is important to also note that the 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis allocated all capital asset
valuations and sewer infrastructure improvement costs up to the full capacity of the treatment
plant--9.5 million gallons per day. In other words, it was not a time-horizon analysis, rather the
total costs were divided by the number of EDUs representing plant capacity to determine the
cost per EDU.
Table 3.5: Sewer Capacity Charge Schedule
Land Use a
Sewer
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
Factora Cost per EDU
Justified
Sewer Capacity
Charge
Current
Sewer
Capacity
Charge b
Percent
Change
Residential, per unit
Single-Family 1.00 $4,785.88 $4,785.88 $3,944.00 21%
Multi-Family 0.76 $4,785.88 $3,637.27 $2,997.44 21%
Mobile Home 0.59 $4,785.88 $2,823.67 $2,326.96 21%
Nonresidential, per 1,000 square feet of floor area
Office 0.270 $4,785.88 $1,292.19 $1,064.88
Commercial/Retail 0.270 $4,785.88 $1,292.19 $1,064.88 21%
Hotel/Visitor Services 0.400 $4,785.88 $1,914.35 $1,577.60 21%
Industrial 0.270 $4,785.88 $1,292.19 $1,064.88 21%
Public/Schools 0.270 $4,785.88 $1,292.19 $1,064.88 21%
a. The EDU factor in this table accounts only for sewer flow rates of various land uses and not the BOD or TSS
parameters.
b. These “current” charges are shown for comparison only for the land uses indicated. The charges apply the
current EDU/single-family rate of $3,944 and the EDU factor to estimate the current charge per unit or per 1,000
square feet of floor area. The City uses the EDU formula above to calculate the actual charge. Application of
the EDU formula would result is different fees depending on the given sewage parameters of the project. For
example, a restaurant would be expected to have a somewhat higher flow rate and BOD loading than a
hardware store, even though both are classified as “Commercial/Retail”.
Summary
Table 3.5 shows the justified sewer capacity charge based on the pro-rated share of the City’s
sewer assets valuation and capital improvements costs attributable to new development. New
development’s fair-share is approximately 37.2 percent of the total asset valuation and capital
improvement cost based on the difference between current and projected future sewage
flows. The justified sewer capacity charge is the product of the fair-share cost per EDU multiplied
by the EDU factor for each type of land use. The increase of 21 percent is due to: 1) the 18.4
percent Construction Cost Index increase applied to the replacement costs of existing sewer
assets; 2) the CCI applied to the remaining sewer capacity capital improvement projects
identified in the 2009 Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis; and 3) the current cost of additional sewer
CIP projects. The charge is projected to generate approximately $90 million, which may be used
for capital improvements and to offset depreciation of the existing sewer collection and
treatment infrastructure.
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
24
4. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
The purpose of this section is to provide the necessary findings for the City to adopt a Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan impact fee program. The City presently does not impose an impact
fee on new development for funding bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
The City of South San Francisco adopted a Bicycle Master Plan (Master Plan) on February 9, 2011
by Resolution 23-2011. The Master Plan recommends the completion of the City’s existing
network of bicycle paths, lanes and routes. The Master Plan was guided by the policies of the
1999 General Plan Transportation Element, subsequently the General Plan was amended to
include the Master Plan recommendations and Bicycle Facilities Map.
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS
The adopted Master Plan made recommendations for bicycle improvement projects and
estimated the costs. Table 4.1 summarizes the projects and the costs updated to 2017 dollars
and calculates new development’s fair-share cost of the improvements. The fair-share is based
on the proportion of the total Citywide average daily trips (ADT) generated by new
development in 2040. The ADT-based allocation method is used as the best representation of
the overall demand for mobility and use of transportation facilities in general. By providing for
safer and more convenient biking and walking, the recommended facilities are intended to
encourage the choice of alternatives to travel by private motor vehicles, enhance the
attractiveness of public transportation, and reduce traffic on the City’s streets. Also, to the
extent that a new development project can demonstrate measures are incorporated into the
design that will reduce the use of motor vehicles, a reduction in the impact fee may be
considered. The Citywide ADT of existing development, growth and the future total are
presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1: Recommended Bicycle Master Plan Improvements
Class Project Name Miles
Project Cost
(2011 Dollars)
Project Cost
(2017 Dollars)1
New
Development
Fair-Share
Existing
Development
Share
Near Term Projects 13.08% 86.92%
III East Grand Avenue Bridge 0.35 $900 $1,030 $135 $895
III Oyster Point Interchange 0.25 $1,600 $1,831 $239 $1,591
I Caltrain Station
Undercrossing 0.08 $7,500,000 $8,580,532 $1,122,334 $7,458,199
II Grand Avenue 1.21 $26,200 $29,975 $3,921 $26,054
II East Grand Avenue 1.44 $31,100 $35,581 $4,654 $30,927
II South Airport Boulevard 1.06 $142,900 $163,488 $21,384 $142,104
III Westborough Blvd. at SR 280 0.12 $800 $915 $120 $796
II McLellan Drive 0.23 $4,900 $5,606 $733 $4,873
II Chestnut Avenue 1.07 $23,200 $26,542 $3,472 $23,071
III Mission Road 0.71 $5,900 $6,750 $883 $5,867
I Rail Trail 1.22 $1,464,000 $1,674,920 $219,080 $1,455,840
II Forbes Boulevard 1.5 $32,400 $37,068 $4,848 $32,219
Subtotal 9.24 $9,233,900 $10,564,237 $1,381,802 $9,182,435
1 Cost inflation factor: ENR Construction 20-City Cost Index San Francisco
December, 2010: 10120.29; December, 2016: 11578.33, change: 14.41%
4. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
25
Table 4.1: Recommended Bicycle Master Plan Improvements (continued)
Class Project Name Miles
Project
Cost
(2011
Dollars)
Project Cost
(2017
Dollars)1 Fair-Share
Existing
Development’s
Share
Mid-Term Projects 13.08% 86.92%
I Sister Cities Park Path Extension 0.6 $720,000 $823,731 $107,744 $715,987
II North Access Road 0.2 $4,300 $4,920 $643 $4,276
III Arroyo Drive 0.13 $300 $343 $45 $298
III Arroyo Drive at El Camino Real 0.11 $300 $343 $45 $298
Subtotal 1.04 $724,900 $829,337 $108,477 $720,860
Long Term Projects 13.08% 86.92%
III Lawndale Boulevard 0.04 $200 $229 $30 $199
I Veterans Boulevard 0.19 $228,000 $260,848 $34,119 $226,729
I Centennial Connector 0.05 $60,000 $68,644 $8,979 $59,666
III Miller Avenue 0.3 $800 $915 $120 $796
III Baden Avenue 0.46 $4,000 $4,576 $599 $3,978
III South Canal Street 0.33 $3,100 $3,547 $464 $3,083
III Oyster Point Boulevard 0.27 $5,900 $6,750 $883 $5,867
III Marina Boulevard 0.17 $500 $572 $75 $497
III Mitchell Avenue 0.28 $700 $801 $105 $696
III Harbor Way 0.35 $900 $1,030 $135 $895
III Dubuque Avenue 0.75 $2,000 $2,288 $299 $1,989
III Holly Avenue 0.71 $1,800 $2,059 $269 $1,790
III
Newman Dr/King Dr/San Felipe
Ave 0.74 $1,800 $2,059 $269 $1,790
I Bay Trail 0.06 $72,000 $82,373 $10,774 $71,599
II Oakmont Drive 0.2 $94,300 $107,886 $14,111 $93,774
II Gellert Boulevard 0.54 $11,600 $13,271 $1,736 $11,535
III Alta Loma Drive 0.27 $700 $801 $105 $696
III Hickey Boulevard 0.07 $200 $229 $30 $199
Subtotal 5.78 $488,500 $558,879 $73,101 $485,777
Total 16.06 $10,447,300 $11,952,453 $1,563,381 $10,389,072
1 Cost inflation factor: ENR Construction 20-City Cost Index San Francisco
December, 2010: 10120.29; December, 2016: 11578.33, change: 14.41%
The nonresidential trips in Table 4.2 were adjusted by a pass-by factor that accounts for primary
trips that originate in one location and end at another, while stopping at a location between
the origin and ultimate destination. The use of adjusted ADT rates for the nonresidential land
uses discounts the trips that are already in the street network and don’t add primary motor
vehicle traffic to the system. This method is particularly appropriate where new neighborhood
commercial development occurs within a land use context that is walkable and bicycle-
friendly—that encourages linking transit with bicycle or pedestrian travel.
10. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
26
Table 4.2: Citywide Average Daily Trips
Land Use1
Residential
Units/
1,000 Square
Feet
(2017)
Total 2040
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Growth
2017-2040
(Units or 1,000
sq. ft.)
Average
Daily Trip
Rate
Pass-by
Factor1
Adjusted
ADT Rate
(AADT) AADT 2017
AADT
2040
AADT
Growth
Residential (units)
Single Family 14,606 16,942 2,336 9.60 - 9.60 140,215 162,639 22,424
Multi-family 5,267 6,107 840 6.70 - 6.70 35,292 40,920 5,627
Mobile Home 304 351 47 5.00 - 5.00 1,519 1,755 236
Subtotal 20,177 23,400 3,223 177,026 205,314 8,287
Nonresidential (in 1,000 square feet or as noted otherwise)
Office/R&D 9,788 14,288 4,500 5.30 0.30 3.71 36,314 53,009 16,695
Commercial/Retail 1,418 2,518 1,100 48.00 0.70 14.40 20,414 36,254 15,840
Hotel (rooms) 1,973 4,673 2,700 10.50 0.10 9.45 18,645 44,160 25,515
Industrial 32,170 27,170 (5,000) 5.46 0.10 4.91 158,085 133,515 24,570)
Subtotal 45,349 48,649 3,300 233,458 266,938 33,480
Total 410,484 472,252 61,767
New trips percentage of total: 13.08%
1 The Pass-by Factor reduces the ADT rates to account for non-primary trips, that is, trips that are already in the network. For example, 70% of the trips
stopping at commercial or retail establishments are continuing to a destination other than where they began.
10. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
27
Table 4.3 calculates the cost per AADT of the Master Plan improvements. The existing
development’s cost per trip is determined by dividing existing development’s total share by the
current adjusted Citywide AADT. New development’s cost per ADT is determined the same
way—by dividing the fair-share amount by the primary trips generated by new development.
Table 4.3: Bicycle Master Plan Improvements Cost per ADT
Total Estimated
Cost (2017
Dollars)
Existing
Development/Other
Funding Sources
New
Development
Fair-Share
Master Plan Improvements Costs $11,952,453 $10,389,072 $1,563,381
Average Daily Trips 410,484 61,767
Cost per ADT $25.31 $25.31
The fair-share cost per ADT is the same as for existing development. This reflects the fact that
both existing and future travelers benefit equally from the improvements.
BICYCLE MASTER PLAN FEE SCHEDULE
The fully justified impact fees for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements are presented in
Table 4.4
Table 4.4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Fees
Land Use1
AADT per Unit or
1,000 sq. ft. Cost per ADT
Justified
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Fee
Residential, per unit Single Family 9.60 $25.31 $242.99
Multi-family 6.70 $25.31 $169.58
Mobile Homes 5.00 $25.31 $126.55
Nonresidential, per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, unless noted
otherwise
Office 3.71 $25.31 $93.90
Commercial/Retail 14.40 $25.31 $364.48
Hotel/Visitor Services (rooms) 9.45 $25.31 $239.19
Industrial 4.91 $25.31 $124.38
Summary
The proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan fees, based on a rate of $25.31 per adjusted
average daily trip, presented in Table 4.3 will generate approximately $1.56 million that may be
used to fund bike paths, bike lanes and other improvements needed to complete the City’s
Bicycle and Pedestrian network. The revenue generated by the fee is approximately 13 percent
of the total cost estimate for the improvements recommended in the Master Plan. This
percentage represents the proportion of vehicular trips from new development relative to the
total projected citywide trips in 2040. This is a reasonable method of allocating the cost of
transportation improvements among the beneficiaries.
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
28
5. IMPLEMENTATION
This section identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fee program.
IMPACT FEE PROGRAM ADOPTION PROCESS
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Section
66000 et seq. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain
procedures, including holding a public hearing. Mailed notice 14 days prior to the public
hearing is required only for those individuals who request such notification. Data, such as this
impact fee report and referenced materials, must be made available at least 10 days prior to
the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should inform the City of any other procedural
requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a
resolution. After adoption, there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into
effect, unless an urgency ordinance, valid for 30 days, is adopted making certain findings
regarding the urgency being claimed. The ordinance must be re-adopted at the end of the first
period (and possibly at the end of the second period, depending on City Council meeting
dates) to cover the next 30 days and therefore the entire 60-day waiting period. Fees adopted
by urgency go into effect immediately. This procedure must also be followed for fee increases.
PROGRAMMING REVENUES AND PROJECTS WITH THE CIP
If the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is used in the nexus findings to establish and
document facility costs, the City should update the CIP to identify specific projects and program
fee revenues to those projects. Use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable
relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues. If the CIP is integral to the
nexus, updates and revisions to the CIP must be adopted in a noticed public hearing.
For the planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all existing fund balances and
projected fee revenue to facilities projects. The City should plan its CIP expenditures at least five
years in advance and show where all collected development impact fee revenues will be
spent. The City can hold funds in a project account for longer than five years if necessary to
collect sufficient funds to complete a given project.
FUNDS NEEDED TO COMPLEMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
In adopting the fees as presented in this report, additional funds will need to be identified to
fund the share of costs not related to new development. This nexus study identifies the facilities
studied in this report and the funding sources for the facilities. The General Fund/Other Sources
column identifies the additional funding that the City needs to obtain for the facilities shown to
cover the City’s share related to existing development.
INFLATION ADJUSTMENT
For the majority of the projects, the costs in this report are shown in 2017 dollars based on the
consultant’s experience and actual construction costs where available. To ensure that the fee
program stays current with the prevailing cost of construction, the City should identify
appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and include an automatic annual inflation
adjustment in the fee ordinance for those facilities or systems that have not been completed. In
addition, for those facilities for which the City is recouping funds for building excess capacity into
the facilities, no annual adjustment factor is recommended. For these projects, the annual
5. IMPLEMENTATION
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
29
adjustment factor is not necessary because the facilities have been constructed and the costs
determined.
A construction cost index can be based on the City’s recent capital project experience or taken
from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record.
COMBINING FEES
Each facility category has been presented separately for the purpose of analysis and reporting.
However, fees may be combined into two or more fee categories at the City’s discretion to
facilitate administration.
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) mandates
procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection, accounting, refunds,
updates, and reporting. The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting
requirements. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other revenues,
the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify
when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project. The City’s
compliance obligations vis-à-vis the act include but are not limited to the following specific
requirements:
Collection of Fees. Section 66007 provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees
by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first. In a residential development of more than one
dwelling unit, the local agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for
phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling
unit when it is completed. The local agency may require the payment of those fees or charges
at an earlier time if: (A) the local agency determines that the fees or charges will be collected
for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds
appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule
or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy; or (B) the fees or
charges are to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made. “Appropriated,”
as used in this section, means authorization by the governing body of the local agency for which
the fee is collected to make expenditures and incur obligations for specific purposes.
Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to
have no impact on facilities for which fees are charged, such project must be exempted from
the fees. If a project has characteristics that indicate its impacts on a particular public facility or
infrastructure system will be significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used
to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly.
In some cases, the City may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would
otherwise apply to a project to promote goals such as affordable housing or economic
development. Such a waiver or reduction may not result in increased costs to other
development projects and is allowable only if the City offsets the lost revenue from other fund
sources.
Credit for Improvements by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of
approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been or will be
charged, the impact fee imposed on that development project for that type of facility must be
5. IMPLEMENTATION
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
30
adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of facilities or improvements constructed or otherwise
provided by the developer. If the reimbursement would exceed the amount of the fee to be
paid by the development for that type of facility, the City may seek to negotiate a
reimbursement agreement with the developer.
Earmarking of Fee Revenues. Section 66006 mandates that the City “deposit…fees for the
improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any
commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the City, except for temporary
investments.” Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected.
Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for
the same purpose. The Mitigation Impact Fee Act is not clear as to whether depositing fees “for
the improvements” refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g.,
bicycle facilities). Recommended practice is for the City is to maintain separate funds or
accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category, but not necessarily for individual projects.
Reporting. Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal
year, the City must make available to the public the following information for each account
established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. The amount of the fee.
2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
3. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned.
4. Identification of each public improvement on which fee revenues were expended and
the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the
cost of the public improvement that was funded with fee revenues.
5. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected
financing of an incomplete public improvement.
6. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund,
including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvements on
which the transfer or loan will be expended.
7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs
(e) and (f).
The above information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled
public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public.
Findings and Refunds. Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit
of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five
years thereafter, the City must make all of the following findings for any fee revenues that remain
unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put.
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is
charged.
5. IMPLEMENTATION
City of South San Francisco Development Impact Mitigation Fee Update
May 2017 Draft Report
31
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of
incomplete improvements for which the impact fees are to be used.
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete
financing of those improvements will be deposited in to the appropriate account of
fund.
Annual Update of Capital Improvement Program. Section 66002 provides that if the City adopts
a CIP to identify the use of impact fees, that program must be adopted and annually updated
by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify
improvements in other public documents.
2816400.1
May 25, 2017
1
What are Developer Impact Fees?
Park Land Acquisition and Construction
Sewer Capacity
Bicycle and Pedestrian
2
Mitigation Fee Act
◦Government Code Section 66000;
◦For capital improvements to accommodate
population growth; and
◦Ensures that new development pays its fair share
3
Quimby Act
◦Only applies to subdivisions
Municipal Resource Group study
SSFMC Chapter 8.67
◦50% discount
◦Acquisition and Construction Costs
◦Only includes residential development
Park Land Standards
Add annual Cost Construction Index (CCI)
4
Land Use
Type
Current Fee Study
Recommend*
Market
Average
Staff
Recommend
Single Family $20,603 $41,606 $30,923 $29,124
Multi-Family $10,630 $21,466 $24,962 $15,026
Commercial/
Retail
N/A $5,025 $3,022 $3,517
*Adjusted by Cost Construction Index
5
Collection, treatment, disposal facilities;
Not a DIF – Government Code 66013;
Uses Population growth estimate to 2040 to
determine new development’s fair share;
$84.5M in Sewer CIP (Table 3.3); Growth fair
share is $29.8M;
$161.6M in replacement costs; Growth fair
share is $60.1M;
Total cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
is $4,785.88 (Table 3.4);
6
Land Use
Type
Current Fee Study
Recommend
Market
Average
Staff
Recommend
Single Family $3,944 $4,786 $6,564 $4,786
Multi-Family $2,997 $3,637 $6,984 $3,637
Commercial/
Retail
$1,065 $1,292 $3,321 $1,292
7
Bicycle Master Plan adopted 2011;
Table 4.1 List of Improvements – $11.9M
◦New development’s share is $1.5M;
Table 4.2 Average Daily Trips (ADT);
◦New Development’s share is 61,767 (13.08%)
Cost per ADT $25.31;
8
Land Use Current Study
Recommend
Market
Average
Staff
Recommend
Single Family $0 $243 $120 $243
Multi-Family $0 $169 $72 $169
Commercial/
Retail
$0 $364 $40 $364
9
10