The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-18-2020 P&R Comm Packet Agenda CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:00 p.m. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission. If this is your first time, the following is a general outline of our procedures: Please note that due to the COVID-19 outbreak, this meeting is teleconference only, and will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order N29-20 issued on March 17, 2020 allowing for deviation of teleconference rules required by the Brown Act and pursuant to the Order of the Health Officer of San Mateo County dated March 31, 2020. The public may view or comment during this meeting from a computer, laptop, tablet, or smartphone: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83630480159?pwd=UVlJeGhEbHI2ZzFBUVJIOUlSSERhdz09 Meeting ID: 836 3048 0159 Passcode: 08182020 One tap mobile +16699006833,,83630480159# US (San Jose) +13462487799,,83630480159# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) 833 548 0282 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Commissioners Aires, Battaglia, DeNardi, Firpo, and Lock, and Vice Chair Uy and Chair Camacho and essential City staff will participate via Teleconference. Members of the public may submit their comments on any agenda item or public comment via email or Parks & Recreation main line. PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE. In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection at the Parks and Recreation Department in the Municipal Services Building. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. Public Comment: Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the GoToMeeting session, join the meeting from your computer or mobile device, enter your name, and request to comment through the “Chat” function and a staff person will add you to the queue for comments and unmute your microphone during the comment period. In the alternative, you may also provide email comments received during the meeting will be read into the record. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda item number you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the Commission from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or report. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. Remote Public Comments: Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting and public comments received will be read into the record. The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on Tuesday, July 21, 2020, to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. A maximum of 3 minutes per individual comment will be read into the record. Comments that are not in compliance the Commission’s rules of decorum may be summarized for the record rather than read verbatim. Email: parks@ssf.net Electronic Comments received by email will be monitored during the meeting and read into the record. We ask that you limit your electronic comments so that they comply with the 3 minute time limitation for public comment. Parks & Recreation Hotline: (650) 829-3837 Voice messages will be monitored during the meeting, and read into the record. Your voicemail should be limited so that it complies with the 3 minute time limitation for public comment. If you have special questions, please contact the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Director will be pleased to answer your questions when the Commission is not in session. KRISTY CAMACHO CHAIRPERSON ROBERT UY BETTY BATTAGLIA VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONER WILLIAM LOCK MICHAEL AIRES SECRETARY COMMISSIONER RUTH DeNARDI STEPHEN FIRPO COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER SHARON RANALS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION GREG MEDIATI DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION Agenda CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING Teleconference Meeting Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:00 p.m. A G E N D A I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Pledge of Allegiance IV. Agenda Review V. Approval of Minutes of the July 21, 2020, Meeting VI. Citizen Participation (Citizen comment on items not agendized/informational only) VII. Beautification Committee VIII. Old Business A. 2020-21 Annual Co-Sponsored Group Renewals B. Capital Projects Update C. COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update IX. New Business A. 2020-21 Proposed Fee Modifications X. Friends of Parks and Recreation XI. Items from Commission XII. Items from Staff A. Calendar of Events B. Administrative Update XIII. Adjournment Next Meeting: Regular Meeting: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES FROM TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of South San Francisco was held on Tuesday, July 21, 2020, via teleconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic and local Shelter in Place health orders. II. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Aires, Battaglia, Camacho, DeNardi, Firpo, Lock, and Uy Absent: All were present Staff: Sharon Ranals, ACM/Director of Parks and Recreation Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Joshua Richardson, Parks Manager Angela Duldulao, Recreation Manager Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner / Economic & Community Development Kari Jung, Administrative Assistant City Staff in Attendance: Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager / Economic & Community Development Laura Armanino, Childcare Supervisor Kelli Cullinan, Seniors Supervisor Erin O’Brien, Civic Campus Fundraiser Co-Leader / Recreation Supervisor Austin Navarro, Facilities Coordinator III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Skipped. IV. AGENDA REVIEW: Review of Co-Sponsored Groups applications was moved to the beginning to allow those members to leave earlier. The Shared Streets Pilot Program presented by the Economic & Community Development Department was moved up to be heard as the second item so those staff members could leaver earlier. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 16, 2020, MEETING: Approved by motion as written. Motion: Commissioner Firpo / Seconded: Commissioner Aires. VI. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: None VII. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Deputy Director Mediati reported that there has not been a Beautification Committee meeting since February of this year and there is nothing new to report. VIII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Update Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 21, 2020 Page 2 Deputy Mediati updated the commission on the FY 2020-21 Budget adopted by Council in June, reporting that the City remain fiscally sound however in light of the ongoing pandemic and resulting financial impacts, budget reductions were adopted as well as reallocation of available funding sources for both supplies and services and salaries netting to about $1.7 million in reductions as follows: • $1.1 million reduction in full-time staff savings • $330,000 reduction in part-time staff savings • $610,000 reduction for supplies and services • $300,000 additional funding for the creation of an innovation fund Deputy Mediati shared that the following previously discussed potential budget reductions were restored: • $7,000 for Cultural Arts Commission funding • Front counter hourly staff assistance • $25,000 restoration of Open Gym • $2,500 Rentals support for art shows • $15,000 Sunday recreation classes • $15,000 weekend operations at Magnolia Center • $20,000 each for minor maintenance funds for both the Parks and Facilities Divisions • Staff furloughed for budgetary reasons was decreased from 13 FTEs to about three. Additional hourly staff will likely be off due to COVID program closures. Staff continues to study options for utilizing the Innovation Fund and allow the Department to operate differently during COVID and restore programs. Manager Duldulao shared that staff is focused on building out a virtual program, the most viable option at this point given what we know about the public health orders, including Maker Labs, where residents can register for classes that come with supply kits, as well as some different STEAM, coding, and art classes. Staff is also looking into options to support instructors who may not have the technical ability to offer virtual classes at home by building out a virtual studio. Other ideas under consideration include more in-person outdoor programs, pop up parks, senior programs, and virtual or in-person sports camps. Deputy Mediati shared that the Department is working with Finance on direction given to explore increases in program fees and that staff will provide detailed overview in August. Director Ranals shared that fee increases will be discussed by the Budget Subcommittee at their next meeting on Monday, July 27th. She further requested input from the commission about charging fees for virtual programs. Commissioner Firpo shared that the Department needs to recover some costs at a minimum. He is excited about the Makers Lab idea and would like to see a cooking class. He’s glad to see the Drive-In Movie Night is still an option. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 21, 2020 Page 3 Commissioner Uy shared that the virtual content costs money to produce and therefore has a value. He acknowledged that the current situation looks to be ongoing for an extended period of time and virtual programming will be necessary. He further shared that the Department should charge for the programs to help grow the program. Charges for the programs offered should take into account how effective the content is from a virtual standpoint, is it interactive or pre-recorded. Use the scholarship fund or other sources to offset fees for those financially impacted by the pandemic, opposed to devaluing the program by offering it for free. Commissioner DeNardi suggested that consideration of families with job losses be taken and offer 50% off through outreach as necessary. The virtual programs are great and many are enjoying them. Commissioner Battaglia shared her agreement that costs need to be recovered but that the circumstances of families experiencing loss need to be considered. Chair Camacho concurred that some costs need to be covered and the instructors need to know the value of the service they are providing. She shared that each virtual program needs to be reviewed for effectiveness and fees determined based on cost as well as how specialized it is. All classes should charge a fee, not setting a precedent that classes are free, and then determine if there is a difference in fee for in-person versus virtual classes. Some classes may be pre-recorded and only suggest a $5-$20 donation while other classes are highly specialized and charge a full fee for one-on-one instructions versus 50% for a group class. Commissioner Aires shared that the quality of content and fees related to virtual offering of classes is a hot topic right now, especially at the university level. He shared that not all classes translate well virtually and some should be limited in attendees based on the amount of individual attention necessary to be effective while others can be presented as a seminar. Additionally, self-study or self-paced series can be considered. Chair Camacho shared her support of those options and inquired if the scholarship information is being advertised and presented in other languages. She also raised the issue of promoting on social media doesn’t reach those that are technologically challenged and inquired about programs or services to get technology to those without access. Deputy Mediati agreed that the scholarship information needs to be actively shared so that residents don’t feel turned away if they are unable to afford options at this time. Manager Duldulao shared that the Department is working towards having a Fall Session of classes, however it wouldn’t be possible to create an Activity Guide with the consideration of how quickly Health Orders and reopening guidelines changes are occurring under the pandemic. In lieu of the Activity Guide, staff is considering a post card or short mailer to direct residents to the website. Commissioner Battaglia inquired about a bank of computers that the library has and if the schools are providing students with equipment as well. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 21, 2020 Page 4 Chair Camacho shared that the Chromebooks and hotspots provided by the schools won’t address other household members that may want to participate in classes as well as those individuals that do not have school-age children. B. COVID-19 Programs Update Manager Duldulao shared a follow up report from the previous meeting highlighting that many of the businesses that were being allowed to reopen in June have since been ordered to close under updated Emergency Orders issued by the Governor. The Department has been able to open the pool for limited lap swim and Childcare for limited groups. We have learned how much planning is required to create procedures for reopening and are incorporating what we’ve learned into advanced planning for future reopening. The status of our programs is as follows: • Aquatics –Lap Swim by reservation has been well received and we have added evening hours on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. We are looking into offering aquatic fitness classes depending upon our ability to continue reopening. • Childcare – Summer Program offering has been going well. We’re still working with the school district to firm up their planning and dates for the upcoming school year before we proceed further with our After School programming. Supervisor Armanino and her team are consulting with principals and the district to brainstorm how to address anticipated childcare needs. • Classes – Our virtual program is now fully launched to the public thanks to a generous donation from the Friends of Parks and Recreation. Staff will be discussing fees for the virtual class offerings and appear to be aligned with the Commission regarding this issue. Other aspects to consider include the Senior discount and the Get Moving grant fees that Kaiser allowed the City to roll over into the new fiscal year. • Cultural Arts – This program is supporting our virtual program offerings. • Rentals – Based on the success of the pilot program, the tennis court reservation program is expanding and continuing through the end of August. Additionally, on a case by case basis, the Rentals program is supporting essential city meetings, blood drives, hosting trainings for census groups. • Seniors – Our engagement with seniors continues remotely by telephone outreach with information and referral services and food delivery. • Sports – Out team has continued to also support our virtual programs, the Junior Giants with approximately half of the usual participation. Chair Camacho inquired how comfortable seniors are with virtual technology. Supervisor Cullinan shared that a large percentage of seniors do not use technology but that staff is keeping track of who may need support in those areas and determining if the Innovation Fund can be utilized to bring more of those types of services and interactions to this population. The ongoing isolation is getting more difficult and staff has been attempting to remotely train on how to Face Time. She further mentioned that staff member John Lau would like to get a Zoom-Bingo game started if enough members can get access to and acclimated with the technology. Deputy Mediati suggested a talent exchange: pairing up someone that is good with technology with someone that is good with baking. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 21, 2020 Page 5 Chair Camacho shared that many supplemental programs offered by the school district are supported by active PTAs. With limited ability to fundraise coupled with additional educational needs for distance learning, most of these arts and sports programs will be eliminated. Commissioner Uy shared that youth baseball is practicing on the fields and suggests that the Department resume rentals of fields since groups are gathering and utilizing the fields anyway. Manager Duldulao shared that as co-sponsored groups and other groups make requests for facility rentals, they are being directed to state guidelines to reference for their proposals and that all proposals that meet the guidelines will be considered for permit issuance. Director Ranals clarified that one co-sponsored group has applied for and received a permit to operate a sports camp, but not for game play, in accordance with state guidelines. Commissioner DeNardi requested clarification on whether the Department provides the guidelines to co-sponsored groups. Deputy Mediati clarified that the groups are directed to the State’s guideline for creating their proposals and staff reviews the proposals utilizing those guidelines. There is a back-and-forth discussion until each point is addressed. Additionally, rentals are not limited to just co-sponsored groups, but any group that can meet the guidelines in effect such as the Red Cross hosting a blood drive. Commissioner Battaglia inquired if the groups are self-monitoring that they are following the guidelines or if they are being monitored. Manager Duldulao explained that the groups are responsible for self-monitoring, however as behaviors are reported to staff, mitigating action is taken. The basketball courts had been opened up, but has staff received reports and then observed that guidelines were not being followed, the hoops were removed at high use sites. Director Ranals confirmed that staff is spot checking activities as allows and following up on reports of activates from the public. On busy weekends, like July 4th, Park Ambassadors were used to track park attendance, distribute masks, and educate the public on allowed activities. She also shared that the Swim Team is another co-sponsored group that will be allowed to schedule lap swimming. Chair Camacho thanked the Department and commended staff on the great communication letting everyone know what is open and what guidelines are in place. IX. New Business: A. 2020-21 Annual Co-Sponsored Group Renewals Typically, more groups would be present, but the challenges of COVID-19 facing staff on both sides, additional flexibility is being given to groups for presenting for renewal. Manager Duldulao recommended that the Commission approve the co-sponsorship application submitted by the Mother’s Club for approval and introduced Nadia Rodriguez to address the Commission and answer any questions about the Mother’s Club. Nadia Rodriguez shared that the Mother’s Club offers space for South San Francisco mothers and families to come together for means of support. This year, they have had a significant increase in new members as their virtual meetings provide one of the few means for mothers to connect with others as well as providing connections for the kids and families. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 21, 2020 Page 6 Chair Camacho expressed her support for the group and inquired about the requirements for insurance and permits. Manager Duldulao shared that the City is maintaining the insurance and permit requirements so that the groups are ready to participate as reopening occurs, however the application fee was reduced by 25% in recognition of the financial impacts under the pandemic. Commissioner Firpo thanked Nadia Rodriguez for her presentation. He inquired how many co-sponsored groups generally apply each year. Manger Duldulao clarified that there are currently nine co-sponsor groups and the other eight will be presented in upcoming Commission meetings. The Commission unanimously approved the application for the Mother’s Club (moved by Commissioner Lock and Seconded by Commissioner Firpo), with Chair Camacho abstaining from the vote due to her affiliation with the group. The Commission deferred a vote on the Youth Soccer League until a representative would be present at a future meeting. B. Shared Streets Pilot Program Deputy Mediati introduced Senior Planner Christopher Espiritu from the Economic & Community Development Department to give a presentation on a Shared Streets Pilot Program. Sr. Planner Espiritu gave a presentation highlighting a proposed pilot plan. • Three separate neighborhoods in the downtown areas o 0.4 miles on Randolph Ave from Highland Ave to east of N. Spruce Ave. o 0.4 miles on Cypress Ave o 0.3 miles on Miller Ave from Holly Ave. to Evergreen Dr. • In response to the social distancing requirements due to the pandemic and lack of available open space in an attempt to meet those challenges. • There is a separate effort to address outdoor dining in the economic activity centers like Grand Avenue and Linden in the downtown areas, recognizing that there isn’t a demand to close down those streets, rather a demand to keep them open. • Create shared expanded open space for people to walk around and get exercise, specifically in areas lacking available park and open space. Commissioner Aires inquired about the duration of the pilot program, would it be on Saturdays, Sundays, Wednesdays, or alternating? Would there be staff or volunteers monitoring the entry/exit points? He also recommended reaching out to the City’s BPAC members. Sr. Planner Espiritu shared that the pilot would be to run on all three streets together on a chosen date. They are in discussion with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to provide volunteers for the pilot program as well as considering City resources. Commissioner Uy shared his support for the concept and shared his perception of similar programs in San Francisco. He would prefer a program with completely closed streets as demonstrated in other municipalities. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 21, 2020 Page 7 Commissioner Firpo inquired about notification of residents in the areas as well as what hours were being considered. Commissioner DeNardi shared her support for the concept and suggested reaching out to the neighbors in the areas and getting their input as well. She further inquired if this would just be for the summer or if it would extend into the fall as well. Sr. Planner Espiritu explained that the intention is to capture what is left of summer and continue into the fall into the three neighborhoods selected and any others that may be suggested. Commissioner Battaglia inquired about parking for those wanting to attend as well as how will parking of residents in the street be addressed. Sr. Planner Espiritu shared that this comment is raised as a concern often and as this program is presented as temporary and for a limited time period, parking would not be addressed, though a certain amount of surge parking is to be expected. Commissioner Lock expressed his concerns related to partially-closed versus completely closed streets. He further addressed the attempt to create loops with the bicycle connections where stairs and or inclines may hinder walkers, joggers, and/or bikers. Chair Camacho suggested connecting this program with the school district and their schools properties which are sitting near vacant due to the pandemic as a means to further expand available open space. She further inquired about creating a street fair type of atmosphere where tables can be setup for dissemination of information and supplies. C. Celebrating July as Parks and Recreation Month Supervisor O’Brien gave a presentation on July is Parks and Recreation Month: • Americans have celebrated the month of July to promote the importance parks and recreation has in health and well-being, conservation and social equity, and to recognize the hard-working professionals that make it all possible since 1985. • This year, we have joined with the National Recreation and Park Association in their campaign to celebrate “We are Parks and Recreation,” and thanks to our partnership with the South San Francisco Friends of Parks and Recreation and their generous donation, we've been able to offer virtual classes free at no cost to just under 300 participants. • Keeping with the theme to highlight our dedicated staff members, we launched our social media campaign introducing the public to some of the many faces of our department. We have seen growth in our engagements all across our social media platforms. Looking at the Facebook, for example, we've seen an 80% increase and engagements from this same time period last month of June to this month in July, equaled about over 700 new likes or engagements. • Starting next week we will launch of our audio and virtual or audio tour of Orange Memorial Park and in particular, the Sculpture Garden. Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 21, 2020 Page 8 Chair Camacho inquired if the users can and will be surveyed about the virtual classes and Commissioner DeNardi inquired how many are taking classes for the first time. Supervisor O’Brien shared that staff will be able to survey registered users at the end of the current period. X. Friends of Parks and Recreation: Supervisor Cullinan thanked the Friends as the fiscal agent for donations which has supported Rocko’s donation of fresh produce for seniors. XI. Items from Commission: Commissioner Firpo expressed gratitude to staff for their efforts, including repaired tennis court nets at Terrabay and the robust offerings of virtual classes. Commissioner Aires thanked staff and gave an additional plug for the social media postings. Commissioner DeNardi shared that we are lucky and so fortunate to have such a dedicated group in our city, and we thank you very much. Commissioner Uy expressed his gratitude to staff for recognizing the need for programs during the shelter in place, especially for youth. Commissioner Battaglia thanked staff, specifically Kelli Jo and the Senior Center staff for their outreach. Commissioner Lock shared that Parks and Recreation is essential to everyone and thanked staff for making it all work even during budget cuts. He inquired about the status of Gardiner Park renovation and the fencing around Irish Town looks like a car ran over the curb and hit the fence. Manager Richardson provided an update on the Gardiner Park renovation • Playground equipment and sign were being installed over the previous week • The backboards and posts for basketball hoops are being installed this week • The drinking fountains, light posts, and remaining amenities will be installed in the coming week(s). • Major construction is wrapping up over the next few weeks and should be complete by the beginning of September. Manager Richardson confirmed that the fence around Irish Town was hit by a car and staff has repaired the fence as well. Commissioner Lock further inquired about the use of playground structures. Supervisor Armanino explained that under the current health orders, children are not allowed access to them unless they have exclusive use, like in a private daycare, so that the structures can be sanitized between uses. Chair Camacho thanked staff for assisting her with the mass give away effort with the City Census team and reminded the commission about the ongoing General Plan meetings and asked if commissioners would attend as they break out into neighborhood meetings and she can’t attend more than one. She recently learned of a petition going around to save Cypress Park. XII. Items from Staff: Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 21, 2020 Page 9 A. Calendar of Events. Deputy Mediati shared that most events have been cancelled or postponed. One item of note on the July calendar is the Budget Subcommittee meeting on Monday, July 27th. August is pending outcomes from the school district scheduling and the Commission is meeting again on August 18th. September 19th is the annual Coastal Cleanup, but that event will be modified to disperse volunteers into the neighborhoods to do neighborhood cleanup, pending approval with the County and State. Chair Camacho raised concern that the Budget Subcommittee is reviewing and may be recommending fee increases without input from the Commission. Deputy Mediati encouraged the commissioners to attend the subcommittee meeting. Any updates received prior will be shared and the commission will review/discuss at the August 18th meeting. Director Ranals reminded that fee increase proposals won’t go to full council until after the next commission meeting. General direction given is that fees should increase by 3% across the board city-wide to account for the 3% increase that full-time staff recently received. B. Administrative Updates Chair Camacho inquired if any Commissioners had any questions related to the previously shared administrative updates. No questions were posed. XIII. Adjournment: 10:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Kari Jung, Administrative Assistant II Staff Report DATE: August 18, 2020 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Recreation Manager SUBJECT: 2020/21 Annual Co-Sponsorship Renewals - August RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission by motion approve co-sponsorship renewal for the 2020/21 fiscal year for the following groups: Historical Society of South San Francisco, Italian American Citizens Club, South San Francisco Aquatics Club, and South San Francisco United Youth Soccer League. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This report is a continuation of annual co-sponsorship renewals presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission at the July 21, 2020 meeting. As explained at that meeting, understanding that COVID-19 may present various challenges to each co-sponsored group as well as the personal lives of individuals involved, the Department has been flexible in terms of granting an extension of the application deadline to co-sponsored groups. The following list identifies groups pending approval (i.e., staff has received the group’s renewal application and is recommending that the Commission approve the group’s co-sponsorship renewal), one group that was approved at the July meeting, and four groups that have requested an extension to complete their application. PENDING APPROVAL 1. Historical Society of South San Francisco 2. Italian American Citizens Club 3. South San Francisco Aquatics Club 4. South San Francisco United Youth Soccer League APPROVED 5. South San Francisco Mother’s Club TO BE REVIEWED AT A FUTURE MEETING 6. AARP Chapter 3156 7. Ballet Folklorico of South San Francisco Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: 2020/21 Annual Co-Sponsorship Renewals - August Page: 2 8. South San Francisco Shetland Pinto Mustang Baseball 9. South San Francisco Youth Baseball Managers Association Immediately prior to the July 21, 2020 Commission meeting, staff realized that an outdated version of the co-sponsorship agreement had mistakenly been sent out to the co-sponsored groups, and that this same version was also attached to the Commission’s July staff report. Staff have since corrected the error and is attaching a new copy of the Co-Sponsorship Agreement in Attachment 1. As a reminder for considering the approval of the co-sponsored group applications, co-sponsored groups are those organizations that are recreational in nature, bring people of like interests together, and provide opportunities for social exchange and development. Benefits of co-sponsorship include modest staff support, inclusion of promotional materials in the Activity Guide, ability to participate with Department events, and reduced cost of facility usage as available. Each group is required to have a membership and governing board consisting of no less than 51% South San Francisco residents. In order to maintain the privileges associated with co-sponsored status, groups are required to submit an annual report which includes program, membership, and financial information. Staff reviews the reports and prepares a summary and recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission. CO-SPONSORED GROUP SUMMARIES As of this report, the following co-sponsored groups have completed their co-sponsorship application. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the co-sponsorship applications for the following groups: 1. Historical Society of South San Francisco President: Bill Zemke Vice President: Dave Casagrande Membership: 237 (68% South San Francisco residents) Activities: The Historical Society of South San Francisco was established in 1980 to preserve and share the history and culture of South San Francisco. They have two facilities in South San Francisco featuring historical information. Membership is open to anyone and runs on a calendar year basis expiring on December 31 each year. Dues are $15 per person or $20 per family per year. Board meetings are held monthly. Beginning Balance: $116,841 Revenue: $ 37,963 Disbursements: $ 18,458 Ending Balance: $136,346 2. Italian American Citizens Club President: Dan McGough Vice President: Linda Grassi Membership: 340 (46% South San Francisco residents) Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: 2020/21 Annual Co-Sponsorship Renewals - August Page: 3 Activities: The Italian American Citizen’s Club is a social organization that is heavily involved in the sport of bocce and members participate in several tournaments a year. Additional activities include recreational games, classes, and meet and greets. Membership is open to those who are 18 years of age or older, U.S. Citizens or legal residents, and new members must be sponsored by a current member. Dues are $50 per year. Board meetings are held every other month. With regard to not meeting the 51% South San Francisco resident requirement among their membership, IACC reports that they were in compliance on December 31, 2019. However, the group accepted six new members in January and have since been hampered by COVID-19 from soliciting new members. In addition, following the Department’s clarified definition of Organization Officers in the co-sponsorship agreement to include “…executive officer positions, board of directors, trustees, agents, or other leadership roles with control or substantial influence over the organization’s policies or operations as may be designated by the organization bylaws,” IACC also admits that they fall short of the 51% South San Francisco resident requirement among their organization officers. IACC has identified a plan to address this ratio at their next election of officers, a process that typically starts by identifying candidates beginning in September and ending in an election in January. This process may change given the challenges COVID-19 has imposed on the group’s ability to meet in person. In the meantime, IACC has instituted meetings by Zoom and is working on developing ways to carry on with the group’s business matters. Beginning Balance: $22,897 Revenue: $42,611 Disbursements: $37,988 Ending Balance: $27,520 3. South San Francisco Aquatics Club President: Khai Vu Vice President: Tiphanie Wong Membership: 126 (51% South San Francisco residents) Activities: The South San Francisco Aquatics Club is a competitive swim team that practices year-round at Orange Pool. The team competes in swim meets twice a year. The Club collects monthly dues from its members to pay for use of Orange Pool during practice times. Membership dues are $110 to $125 per month. Board meetings are held monthly. Beginning Balance: $ 83,287 Revenue: $254,033 Disbursements: $285,884 Ending Balance: $ 51,436 4. South San Francisco United Youth Soccer League President: Alma Patty Gomez Vice President: Mario Ayar Membership: 521 (52% South San Francisco residents) Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: 2020/21 Annual Co-Sponsorship Renewals - August Page: 4 Activities: The South San Francisco United Youth Soccer League is a co-ed recreational and competitive soccer program. Games and practices are hosted at Orange Park and Terrabay, and the Department also makes arrangements for the group’s use of school district fields. Membership dues are $120 per year. Board meetings are held quarterly during the months of February, May, August, and November. Beginning Balance: $23,741 Revenue: $67,005 Disbursements: $74,496 Ending Balance: $16,250 SUMMARY Staff has reviewed the co-sponsorship applications and finds that the Historical Society of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Aquatics Club, and South San Francisco United Youth Soccer League qualify for renewal of their co-sponsorship status. While the Italian American Citizens Club does not meeting the 51% South San Francisco resident requirement among their general membership or organization officers at this time, IACC has identified a plan for addressing meeting this requirement in the coming year. Staff would like to recognize these groups for their volunteerism and for offering exceptional recreation and enrichment opportunities for South San Francisco residents. Angela Duldulao Recreation Manager Attachments: 1. Co-Sponsorship Agreement Template - corrected The City of South San Francisco Co-Sponsorship Agreement Revised 7/27/2020 1 CO-SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND ___________________________________ This Co-Sponsorship Agreement is between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (“City”) and __________________________, a non-profit organization (“Organization”) as of July 1, 2020 (the “Effective Date”). City and Organization are hereinafter collectively referred to as (the “Parties”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Organization Obligations. Throughout the term of this Co-Sponsorship Agreement, Organization shall comply with all of the following conditions: A. Provide programs that are recreational in nature and provide opportunities for social exchange and development to the South San Francisco community. B. Retain Organization membership ratio of 51 percent South San Francisco residents, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the City. Verify residency of members by providing copies of driver’s licenses or other equivalent proof of address upon request of the Parks and Recreation Department. C. Retain ratio of Organization officers of 51 percent South San Francisco residents, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the City. Verify residency of officers by providing copies of driver’s licenses or other equivalent proof of address upon request of the Parks and Recreation Department. For the purposes of this section, an “officer” includes executive officer positions, board of directors, trustees, agents, or other leadership roles with control or substantial influence over the organization’s policies or operations as may be designated by the organization bylaws. D. Register with the State of California as a non-profit organization, and comply with annual filing requirements. E. Organizations must request permits for use of City buildings, parks, fields or school fields and facilities through the Parks and Recreation Department each calendar year. Permits issued to an Organization may not be extended, sublet or shared to any other organization or group. City reserves the right to reschedule or cancel Organization’s activity if facility is needed for another use. Failure to comply with this provision may result in termination of this agreement. F. Submit monthly “Attendance Reports” to Parks and Recreation Commission, upon request. G. Prepare and submit “Annual Renewal Report,” to include annual financial and program reports, annual tax return, and roster of Board of Directors. The City of South San Francisco Co-Sponsorship Agreement Revised 7/27/2020 2 H. Appear before the Parks and Recreation Commission for annual review, upon request. I. Provide a copy of all changes to Organization’s constitution or bylaws to Parks and Recreation Department. J. Include the words “Co-Sponsored by the South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department” on all publicity materials. K. Give Organization membership priority to South San Francisco residents. L. Provide financial records, including but not limited to cancelled checks, bank statements, and receipts for inventory, upon request of Parks and Recreation Department. M. Organizations that use City facilities, parks, playgrounds, and/or ball fields, with or without staff supervision, share in the responsibility to inspect and maintain the condition of the area to ensure participant and public safety. Organizations warrant to the City that all activities and programs will be performed to the highest industry and professional standards and to the satisfaction of the City. N. While carrying out co-sponsored activities and performing related tasks during the term of this Agreement, Organizations, their staff, employees, agents and volunteers shall conform with the rules of conduct as follows: • Act in a professional, non-disruptive, and respectful manner in dealing with the public and the City. • Comply with all applicable laws, regulations and policies. • Maintain all City facilities, landscapes and premises that are used by Organization in good condition. • Any maintenance duties performed by the Organization must comply with standards approved by City staff; no personal vehicles can be used to perform maintenance on City property. • Additional rules of conduct may be required for specific activities. O. If Organizations encounter conditions in a City facility or on City property which are unsafe for any scheduled activity, that cannot be easily corrected, Organization agrees to modify or cancel the scheduled activity, and to notify staff immediately. Organizations agree that telephone access and emergency contact information is available during all co-sponsored activities. Organization leaders are required to know the location of fire extinguishers and other safety equipment, and have access to a first aid kit. Staff liaisons will provide Organization with the location of safety equipment. P. Organizations agree to report to City staff all significant incidents and accidents that occur on City property, inside a facility, or outdoors at a park or sports field. A report shall be completed even if the occurrence of a significant event off-site has profoundly impacted an individual in your program. For example, an injury to a child/adult which is The City of South San Francisco Co-Sponsorship Agreement Revised 7/27/2020 3 suspicious or severe should be called to the attention of your staff liaison and documented on an incident report. Reports must be completed by the individual who witnessed the significant event, or to whom an off-site event is described. Reports must be turned into the Recreation Department staff liaison within 24 hours. Blank forms will be provided from your staff liaison. Examples of situations in which a written incident/accident report should be completed include, but are not limited to the following: • Significant injury to a participant that affects their participation in a program; • Any member of the public expelled from a co-sponsored activity; • Act of violence or significant dispute between members of the public and co-sponsored group members; • Act of vandalism to public or private property; • Situation where the Police or Fire Department are called; • Complaint by an adult member regarding co-sponsored programs or host facilities; • Theft, loss, or damage to City property or equipment; • Crime or suspected incidents of crime after making a report to the Police Department. Q. Fingerprinting requirements: any group that provides services to or conducts activities involving minors under the age of 18 years shall enact a fingerprinting policy and procedure. Any individuals working or interacting with minors in any manner as a part of the group services, events or activities must be fingerprinted for background check purposes. It shall be the group’s responsibility to ensure that all such individuals comply with fingerprinting requirements, and the group shall retain records demonstrating members’ compliance for a period not less than five (5) years and permit the City to inspect such records upon advanced written notice. 2. City Services. Contingent upon Organization’s continued compliance with all terms and conditions of this Co-Sponsorship Agreement, City will provide the following: A. City will schedule Organization’s use of school or park facilities on an annual basis. Note: City reserves the right to change assignment and schedule at any time. B. City reserves the right to charge fees, based on the number of members or number of activity meetings, to recoup direct costs associated with the Organization’s use of City facilities or services. City agrees to provide not less than thirty (30) day notice to Organization of any fee increases and agrees to notify Organizations of the opportunity for public input prior to adopting new fees. Any changes to the Master Fee Schedule are subject to approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. C. City will include Organization’s information in quarterly Activity Guide. The City of South San Francisco Co-Sponsorship Agreement Revised 7/27/2020 4 D. City will provide Organization’s Officer phone number and/or email address to the public in response to inquiries from the public. E. City may design and print flyers, programs, tickets, stationary, and other projects (not including correspondence) upon request by the Organization at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department. F. City may provide publicity for Organization upon request in a manner and via methods as determined by the City’s sole discretion. G. City reserves the right to, and may from time to time, survey Organizations membership related to City services and to solicit responses. 3. Term of Agreement. Unless terminated in accordance with Section 9 below, this Agreement shall commence upon the date indicated above and shall be in effect for one (1) year unless Organization provides the City notice of intent to renew the Agreement and file a renewal application with the City. All renewal applications shall be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at a public meeting and may not be granted unless Organization remains in compliance with all applicable conditions and requirements herein. 4. No Partnership. The terms of this Agreement shall in no way be construed to create a partnership, joint venture or any other joint relationship between the Parties. 5. Independent Contractor. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is not a contract of employment and does not create an employer-employee relationship between the Parties. At all times Organization shall be an independent entity and Organization is not authorized to bind the City to any contracts or other obligations without the express written consent of the City. 6. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Organization shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, contractors and consultants (collectively, the “City Indemnitees”) from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses and costs (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Organization’s performance under this Agreement, except such Liability caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City Indemnitees. 7. Insurance. Organization (and any subcontractors) shall, at Organization’s (or subcontractor’s) sole cost and expense, furnish the City with certificates of insurance evidencing that Organization has obtained and maintains insurance in the following amounts: A. Workers’ Compensation that satisfies the minimum statutory limits in accordance with California state law, if applicable. B. Commercial General Liability and Property Damage Insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence, The City of South San Francisco Co-Sponsorship Agreement Revised 7/27/2020 5 TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) annual aggregate, for bodily injury, property damage, products, completed operations and contractual liability coverage. The policy shall also include coverage for liability arising out of the use and operation of any City-owned or City-furnished equipment used or operated by the Organization, its personnel, agents or subcontractors. The City of South San Francisco, and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, contractors and consultants are included as additional insured. All insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence basis and shall name the City Indemnitees as additional insureds. The certificates shall contain a statement of obligation on the part of the carrier to notify City of any material change, cancellation, termination or non-renewal of the coverage at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of any such material change, cancellation, termination or non-renewal. Vendor will not operate a vehicle at any point when providing services pursuant to this Agreement 8. Nondiscrimination. Organization shall not discriminate in the provision of service or in the employment of persons engaged in the performance of this Agreement on account of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability in violation of any applicable local, state or federal laws or regulations. 9. Termination. City may terminate or suspend this Agreement at any time, for any reason, including, but not limited to, in the best interest of the City or public upon written notification to Organization. Upon receipt of notice of termination or suspension, Organization shall immediately stop all activities under this Agreement. The City's right of termination shall be in addition to all other remedies available under law to the City. Further, the City shall terminate the Agreement and suspend use of facilities and/or support for failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement, disruptive participants, and/or evidence of financial mishandling. The Agreement may also be terminated upon the Organization’s receipt of thirty (30) days written notice. 10. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Parties. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both Parties. 12. Non-Liability of Officials, Employees and Agents. No officer, official, employee or agent of City shall be personally liable to Organization in the event of any default or breach by City pursuant to this Agreement. The City of South San Francisco Co-Sponsorship Agreement Revised 7/27/2020 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date written above. CITY: ORGANIZATION: By: By: Print Name: Sharon Ranals Print Name: Title: Director of Parks and Recreation APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Attorney 3563578.1 Staff Report DATE: August 18, 2020 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects SUBJECT: Capital Programs Update RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission receive an update on the Community Civic Campus Project and Gardiner Park Improvement Project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City’s Capital Projects team will be prepared to verbally present an update on the design and construction of the new Recreation Community Center and Library facility and construction of Gardiner Park. A brief update those projects are also summarized below. Community Center/Library Construction Update At the December 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, the Commission and public in attendance received an update on the status of design for the new 85,000 square-foot Community Center/Library facility and adjacent 1.3 acre park from staff and SmithGroup, the master architects for the Community Civic Campus. Since then, the Community Civic Campus project team led by Kitchell CEM and SmithGroup Architects continued work despite the turbulence created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The current project schedule envisions that the contract package will be advertised to bidders in early September 2020. Bids are to be received and reviewed in late October 2020. The team anticipates bringing the winning bid to City Council for award in November 2020 and for the groundbreaking to occur in December 2020. With construction expected to take 27 months, the facility is slated for a Spring 2023 opening. Gardiner Park Improvement Project Update Following the contract award to Suarez and Munoz of Hayward, California, site preparation and construction at Gardiner Park began on March 16. The existing playground equipment, site furnishings and lighting was removed along with demolition of existing retaining walls, pathways and basketball court surface. Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: Capital Programs Update Page 2 After project delays as a result of COVID-19 and subsequent local health orders that temporarily halted work, contractors have made excellent progress. New retaining walls have been constructed. Installation of vinyl coated chain-link fencing is underway at the perimeter of the site along with the entry columns and archway. Playground equipment including a log balance beam and steppers, embankment slides and climbing holds, sensory panels and a motion play structure were installed in July. Rubber safety surfacing at the play area along with basketball court surfacing is scheduled for installation in early August. A combination of concrete and brick pathways, including a brick sidewalk are being installed early August. New plantings including trees, shrubs and groundcovers will be installed towards the end of August along with a drinking fountain, benches and other site furnishings. Park construction is expected to be completed early September 2020. By: Greg Mediati Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Staff Report DATE: August 18, 2020 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Recreation Manager SUBJECT: COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission receive an update on the current status of Departmental modified operations in response to COVID-19. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This item serves as an update to the COVID-19 Modified Operations Staff Report from the July 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Since that meeting, the County of San Mateo was placed on the state’s monitoring list due to an increase in the rate of COVID-19 cases in the county. During this time, the county exceeded the state’s case rate threshold for three consecutive days, requiring certain industries and activities to cease operations unless they can be modified to operate outside or by pick-up. Effective as of 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, August 1, the state order affected the following industries or activities: • Gyms and fitness centers • Places of worship and cultural ceremonies, like weddings and funerals • Offices for non-critical infrastructure sectors • Personal care services, like nail salons and body waxing • Hair salons and barbershops • Shopping malls Furthermore, on July 17, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom announced that schools in counties on the monitoring list will not be allowed to hold in-class instruction. However, elementary school districts may request a waiver of this prohibition from the health officer. Counties must remain off the list for 14 consecutive days before schools (absent a waiver) can reopen for in-person learning. More information about local public health orders is available on the San Mateo County Health Department website at https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus. Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update Page: 2 Recreation Division Operations The following report outlines the current status of each Recreation Division program area. It should be noted that any area listed as “open” would be opened under a modified program following the most recent public health guidelines. Activities listed as “postponed” or “pending” are subject to change based on amendments to the public health orders. Aquatics • Open as of Monday, June 29, 2020: o Lap Swim by reservation o Swim Team (co-sponsored program) • Postponed: o Family Swim by reservation o Swim lessons for children and adults o Professional Rescuer Lifeguard certification classes o Recreational swim program o Volunteer swim aide/instructor training o Summer Camp pool programs On Monday, June 29, 2020, Orange Pool began offering Lap Swim by reservation. For a $6 fee, swimmers can reserve a lane for up to a 45-minute swim. Reservation times are currently available Monday – Friday from 5:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m., Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 6:45 p.m. – 8:45 p.m., and Saturday from 7:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. The pool continues to operate at full capacity and is considering expanding lap swim hours in the near future. Upon learning of the state’s August 1 order forcing the closure of gyms and fitness centers, staff consulted with San Mateo County in order to determine whether or not the state’s order also applied to Orange Pool. This question was raised by staff who pointed out that Orange Pool was opened under the County’s June 1, 2020 public health order, Appendix C-2 for Allowed Additional Activities, and opened before gyms and fitness centers were allowed to open. The County was unable to offer a definitive response and has posed the Department’s situation to the California Department of Public Health for review. The County further advised that at this point, it would be the City’s decision whether or not to keep Orange Pool open. Given the extensive safety modifications and limited entry at Orange Pool, and with the support of pool staff, the Department has elected to keep Orange Pool open until further notice by the state or county. Childcare • Open: o Childcare Summer Program, June 15 – August 7, 2020, for preschool and elementary school-aged children o Preschool to continue after August 7, 2020 o Full Day School Age Childcare Program begins August 24, 2020 o Full of Fun – virtual programming on Seesaw and Zoom beginning July 20, 2020 Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update Page: 3 Summer Camp Recap Friday, August 7, 2020 marked the successful completion of the Childcare Summer Program. Deemed as an essential service, this program was the Department’s first endeavor into any kind of programming during the COVID pandemic. The summer program included Summer Camp, which took place at Terrabay Gymnasium and Recreation Center, the Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building, and Ponderosa Elementary School. Summer Camp served approximately 100 children per week. Many of the safety measures applied to Summer Camp and Preschool such as stable groups of staff and children, enhanced cleaning and hand washing, and temperature and health checks upon entry will carry on into fall programming. Preschool Given that preschool has been operating successfully and that the Department’s COVID response remains the same, preschool will continue beyond August 7 without interruption. On average, preschool served 50 participants per week over the summer. This number is expected to remain steady through the fall. Vacant slots left by preschoolers who are graduating to kindergarten will be filled by families who elected to remove their children from preschool over the summer, but wanted to return in the fall. A waiting list remains in place. Full Day School-Age Childcare Program Planning a new Full Day School-Age Childcare Program is underway for the 2020-2021 school year. More detailed background and information about this program is available in the Administrative Update section of the August 18, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting packet. See the memorandums to City Council dated July 30, 2020 and August 13, 2020. The Full Day Program has been developed in response to the South San Francisco Unified School District (District) School Board’s decision on July 16, 2020 to adopt a three-phase approach to opening schools to in-person instruction. • Phase 1 – 100% Distance Learning – All Students • Phase 2 – Most students in 100% Distance Learning – In person instruction/support for students that need additional support (e.g. English learners, special education, foster youth, homeless, etc.) • Phase 3 – Hybrid Learning – Students participate in distance learning 3 days per week / 2 days a week of in-person instruction Each Phase will last a minimum of three weeks, but could last longer. District office administration and school site leadership will examine the San Mateo County health data to determine when schools can progress into the next Phase. The District also delayed the first day of school from Wednesday, August 12, 2020 to Monday, August 17, 2020. Under Phase 1, the Full Day Program will operate Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. and will open on Monday, August 24, 2020 in order to allow time to prepare the program as well as register Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update Page: 4 families. The cost to families will be $672 per month to match the rate for full-time preschool, an increase from $431 for full-time before and after school care. The Full Day Program will open using classroom spaces that have historically been assigned for the Department’s sole use. Space limitations in addition to the requirement to maintain stable groups will severely limit the number of children served compared to the Department’s traditional after school program. See Attachment 1 for a breakdown of children served by school. The Department continues to work with each school site to identify additional facilities that could be used by the Full Day Program. Program expansion will also depend on the Department’s ability to staff additional groups. Given the limited capacity of the Full Day Program, priority enrollment will be granted to children of essential workers and at-risk students. If demand exceeds supply, enrollment will be determined by lottery and a waiting list will be established. Children of non-essential workers may also apply for the program, however, they would be enrolled or waitlisted after children of essential workers. See Attachment 2 for the Full Day Program enrollment information, which explains the priority registration process. Plans to modify the Full Day Program when the District transitions to a Hybrid Learning Model are still to be finalized, pending more information from the District. However, the Department anticipates the primary benefit of operating the Full Day Program on school campuses is that students can more easily transition to the Hybrid Learning Model. Full of Fun Full of Fun programming resumed virtually on July 20, 2020 via Zoom, and has expanded to include the use of the Seesaw application due to so many participants wanting to stay connected. Unlike Zoom, which allows for virtual interactions in real time, Seesaw allows participants to leave pre- recorded messages for one another in an environment that is moderated by a Childcare Program staff person. The option to connect virtually has been a welcome reprieve to Full of Fun participants, who miss the connections with others in this tight-knit community. Zoom meetings will continue monthly, and Seesaw will take place at varying times during the month with an average of 20 participants. Classes • Open o Virtual classes o Virtual Recreation and Resource webpage (www.ssf.net/virtualrec) o Social media campaign • Pending o In-person recreation (Fall session activities) Thanks to a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Benefit Programs, the Department is able to continue offering free virtual classes in August. This grant was originally dedicated to Get Moving South San Francisco!, an initiative that provided up to a $50 scholarship for recreation classes to participants who either had a doctor’s prescription for exercise or provided Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update Page: 5 proof of low-income status. COVID-19 hit just as the initiative was starting to gain traction. Recognizing that many grantees would be unable to complete their proposed project, Kaiser Permanente allowed grantees to propose alternative uses for the grant funds that would address the impact of COVID-19. As part of the free virtual classes, the Department will soon be releasing a series of videos around the idea of establishing a STEAM Lab at Home program. The initial videos will lead kids in STEAM activities using supplies that most can find at home. The Department hopes to grow this idea into a paid subscription-based program in which participants sign up to receive “build boxes” that will include supplies for a variety of different activities. The Department is in the midst of planning a Fall session of activities that is expected to begin in September and will include virtual classes, and possibly some in-person fitness classes. Staff is working with instructors to finalize the schedule of offerings as well as establishing fees. In addition to introducing a fee structure for virtual classes, the Department is developing a marketing plan that will include a mix of free and paid class options. Cultural Arts • Open o Virtual resources for artists on the Cultural Arts webpage o Art presence on the Virtual Recreation and Resource Center webpage • Postponed o In-person art shows The Department continues to promote the arts through its virtual program, including building upon video and audio tours highlighting the background of art pieces throughout the city. Future Cultural Arts Commission meetings are expected to be centered on developing a future public art plan to inform the Commission’s work moving forward. Rentals • Open o Tennis courts by reservation o Facility use for essential services and city meetings, as needed • Postponed o Facility rentals o Picnic rentals o Sports field rentals (primarily used by co-sponsored groups) Beginning on June 15, 2020, the Department began offering rentals of the Orange Park tennis courts by reservation. What started as a limited term pilot program has since been extended through the end of August. Staff anticipates extending the program into September and is currently surveying tennis court users to determine whether any adjustments should be made to the reservation schedule or format. Current reservation hours are Monday – Sunday, 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. The cost is $6 per hour for tennis court reservations. Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update Page: 6 Senior Services • Open o Information and referral, welfare checks by phone and e-mail o Food/meal deliveries to seniors o Distribution of activity and wellness kits • Postponed o Adult Day Care o Drop-in Recreation programs and amenities (i.e. bingo, mahjong, billiards, wellness room, yoga, etc.) The Senior Services program continues to carry on the vital work of information and referral, welfare checks by phone and e-mail, food delivery, and distribution of activity and wellness kits. Staff continues to work on developing opportunities for increased socialization among seniors. This could include ideas such as establishing a senior walking program, providing senior-focused outdoor fitness classes, or providing technology support to help seniors connect with friends and family on platforms such as Zoom. Sports • Open o Online videos o Junior Giants at Home • Postponed o Middle school sports (postponed until December) o Open gym at Terrabay (basketball, futsal, badminton) o Adult softball and basketball • Pending o Sports camp/enrichment activities for youth The Department’s middle school sports program participates in the Northern California Recreation League (NCRL). Other member cities include Brisbane, Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, and San Bruno. Earlier this month, NCRL members voted to follow the CIF/Central Coast Section calendar, the league in which South San Francisco high schools participate. This calendar includes taking a fall semester break and pushing back the start of the season until December as long as the program is able to meet the required safety protocols in a timely matter. During the fall season, it will be up to each city to run their own middle school sports programs or add new offerings that will meet the needs of their respective communities while preparing for a restart in December. The NCRL has proposed a tentative schedule for the 2020 school year, below. This schedule is subject to change: • 6th Grade Basketball: December 14 – February 5 • 7th/8th Grade Basketball: February 8 – April 1 • Volleyball/Flag Football: April 12 – June 4 The normal spring sports which include Track/Field, Badminton, Golf, and Tennis are on hold for Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update Page: 7 now as those particular sports normally have lower enrollment percentage among most NCRL cities. Cities may opt to run these sports in the fall as a training program or an intermural league. Staff is in the process of developing programs to help elementary and middle school students during this pandemic with health, exercise, sportsmanship, and overall self-motivation. If the scheduled winter and spring middle school sports cannot be offered by the NCRL, the Department is planning to offer intramurals or clinics in the sports scheduled during that period. Elementary sports would be offered during their normally schedule months if there are no conflicts with other sports programs and locations. Staff is also considering an online option for certain sports. Special Events • Open: None • Postponed or Cancelled: Events through December 31, 2020 • Pending: o October – Halloween-themed drive-in movie event o November – Modified or virtual Thanksgiving Fun Run As part of the fiscal year 2020-21 budget process, the Department was granted $6,000 to host a drive-in movie event. Staff is in the process of researching potential locations and movie projection companies for the event. October is the earliest feasible date in which to host the event from this point in time. Given that Halloween Extravaganza has been cancelled, staff is considering adding a family-friendly Halloween theme to the drive-in movie event. In addition, staff is considering various options for hosting the Thanksgiving Fun Run as either a modified in-person event or virtual event. Park Amenities There has been no change to the status of park amenities since the July report. The dog park, basketball courts, tennis courts, and skate park are open. A few exceptions include basketball courts at Orange Park, Buri Buri Park, and Westborough Park, which were closed because they were frequently impacted by large group gatherings. Park restrooms remain closed, except for the Orange Park restrooms near the tennis courts, which are open during tennis court reservation hours upon request. Building Maintenance Efforts The Building Maintenance team has been addressing COVID-related safety concerns in city facilities on several levels. Starting with addressing the air quality in the buildings, staff has been replacing the HVAC filters and checking building systems for proper operations. Staff has upgraded all filters to a MERV 13 filter. These filters are specifically designed to trap bacteria, viruses, smoke, and sneeze residue from 75% to 90% or better from 0.3 microns in size to 10 microns in size. To address the most basic CDC recommendations, when in the proximity of other staff and serving the public, staff has purchased and is installing hand sanitizer dispensers at the main public entrance of each building. Depending on each department’s individual operating needs, Building Maintenance will assist in the installation of sneeze guards, social distancing lines, and proper furniture spacing for staff. The Building Maintenance custodial team will continue concentrating on disinfecting and Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: COVID-19 Response and Modified Operations Update Page: 8 cleaning of offices and common areas. Staff has upgraded the current disinfectant to Spartan TB-Cide Quat. TB-Cide Quat is a ready-to-use, intermediate level, one step cleaner and disinfectant for use in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, etc., where infection control is of prime importance. Effective in the presence of 5% blood serum, TB-Cide Quat is suitable for clean-ups per the Bloodborne Pathogen Standard and is effective against MRSA & CA-MRSA, VRE, Canine Parvovirus, Norwalk Virus, and many other pathogens of concern. Staff will continue to monitor the CDC recommendations and modify disinfecting products and practices, as necessary. By: Angela Duldulao Recreation Manger Attachments: 1. Full Day Program Capacity 2. Full Day Program Registration Information Attachment 1 Traditional Program Capacity Compared to Full Day Program Capacity (updated 8/6/2020) School Traditional Program Capacity Full Day Program Capacity* (tentative) After School Recreation Program (ASRP) • Traditional Program: Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – AM bell time / PM bell time – 6:00 p.m. • Full Day Program: Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. (tentative schedule) Buri Buri Elementary School 130 28 Monte Verde Elementary School 200 28 Ponderosa Elementary 160 56** Spruce Elementary School 30 14 REAL (Recreation, Enrichment and Learning) After School Program*** • Traditional Program: Monday – Friday, PM bell time – 6:00 p.m. • Full Day Program: Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. / optional fee- based afternoon add-on 12:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. (tentative schedule) Martin Elementary School 50 14 Los Cerritos Elementary School 50 14 TOTAL 620 154 * The Full Day Program Capacity column indicates the program capacity based on the number of available spaces at the school site known to date. This number may increase once the Department confirms its ability to continue using facilities such as multiuse rooms that are normally used by the school during regular school hours and/or if the school is able to commit additional classroom space for the sole use of the Full Day Program. The actual number of children served will also depend on the demand as well as the Department’s ability to staff the program. ** Budget assumptions for Ponderosa are based on 28 children at this point in time due to program capacity, though site capacity is higher. *** The REAL After School Program is funded by the California Department of Education After School Education and Safety (ASES) grant program. The City and District are partners on the ASES grant, which is a grant requirement. The grant is administered by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. While the City is responsible for operating the REAL Program, the District provides use of school facilities, janitorial service, and principal and teacher time to support the program. Enrollment is primarily based on teacher/principal referrals. The ASES grant also funds the Homework Club, a program operated by the City’s Library Department at the Community Learning Center for students who attend Spruce Elementary School. Full Day School-Age Childcare Program Registration Information Copy of e-mail sent to currently enrolled and waitlisted families for the Before and After School Program or REAL After School Program Dear Families, We hope you are doing well and wanted to provide you with new information on enrollment, policies, and procedures for the 2020-2021 school year in our childcare programs. We hope this information will help so that you can make an informed decision on whether or not you want to have your child participate in our program. As you read on, you will learn that due to limited space and social distancing guidelines, we must implement a priority system that affects enrollment and the waiting list. This letter also outlines health and safety measures that will be in place. Please note that these systems may be subject to change given the unknown, ongoing impact of COVID-19 and changing regulations. We remain committed to serving our after school families and thank you for your support and patience as we develop a new way of caring for your children. Enrollment Options At this time, we are going to prioritize currently enrolled families of essential workers and at-risk students. If we are not able to serve all the students in this priority group, enrollment may have to go to a random draw/lottery. Families who wish to enroll but do not meet the criteria will be waitlisted. If spaces open up during the 2020-2021 school year, we will contact you. Families who are not ready for their child(ren) to return to program upon the reopening, but may want to consider enrollment later in the school year can place their enrollment on hold at this time. You would be placed on the waiting list after the families who want to enroll but space was not available. Re-entry into the program is not guaranteed. Should you choose to withdraw your child from our program this school year, but want to enroll next school year you will be placed on the priority registration list with our 2021-2022 graduating preschoolers. You will not need to participate in the public lottery. The priority list does not guarantee you a space in the program for the 2021-2022 school year. Please note that currently enrolled families who were waitlisted for the 2020-2021 school year (the above two categories) will have priority over you in registering for any open spaces in the 2021-2022 school year. Program is scheduled to begin on Monday, August 24th. Please complete the attached enrollment questionnaire and submit it by Friday, August 14th so that we can process your information. You can: • Fill it out and e-mail it to laura.armanino@ssf.net • Call or e-mail to make an appointment to drop it off at 781 Tennis Drive at 875-6900 or e-mail us • If you are unable to print you can e-mail us with the information requested on the form to laura.armanino@ssf.net We will contact families the week of August 17th with your enrollment status and follow up with paperwork for those who are enrolled. Enrollment is for full time care. We do not have part time schedules at this time. Monthly tuition is $672 for the 5 day full day program. Program will operate 7:30 am – 6:00 pm, Monday – Friday. When school opens for hybrid learning, currently enrolled families will automatically transition to that schedule and you will receive additional information on the hybrid schedule and tuition. Curriculum & Programming We will be assisting children in distance learning and providing them time to go online with their teachers. Each child must bring in their own charged device, charger, and head phones. We are not responsible for any lost, stolen or broken devices. Please note that while we will do our best to assist your child with distance learning, it is still your responsibility to check your child’s work and communicate with their teachers. Use of Masks We are requiring children to wear a mask. Please make sure your put your child’s name on their mask. Please send a new clean mask every day and back up masks with your child. Some children may have trouble wearing a mask all day and for each age and developmental level we will work with those children to increase their mask usage. Children will be able to take off masks when they are outside. The other strategies being implemented (i.e. screening, smaller groups, keeping same children and staff together, providing individual materials, increased frequency of cleaning and disinfecting, and hand washing) all work together to reduce the risk of exposure. Program Procedure Changes Daily Screening Process • Each day upon arrival all parents, children and staff will be asked questions that are designed to screen for illness. Staff and children will also be required to take their temperature. • Your child will be sent home and not permitted to enter if anyone in your household (child, parents, siblings, etc.) are experiencing signs and symptoms of COVID-19, or have come in close contact with an individual who is suspected of having COVID-19, or has a confirmed case of COVID-19. • If your child is healthy and screening is completed, a staff member will meet you at the front entrance and escort your child to their room. Parents will not be permitted to enter the classrooms. • As much as possible, have the same adult drop-off and pick-up each day to reduce the number of adults who come in contact with the staff. • Drop off and pick up are not a time to have long conversations with staff. Please call for any conversations that are more than the general greeting. We want to minimize contact as much as possible. • Please make sure you allow for extra time at drop off and pick up in case there is a line and you have to wait. For pick up, please wait for your child by the classroom. Do not wait in your car after signing them out. STEP 1: SYMPTOM CHECK You will need to answer the following questions: • Do you live with anyone or have you had close contact with anyone who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 within the past 14 days? • Have you had a new onset of any of the following symptoms in the last 24 hours, that is not explained by a previously diagnosed (and non-infectious) condition? • Cough • Shortness of breath • Chills • Unexplained muscle pain or fatigue • Sore throat • New loss of taste or smell • Gastrointestinal symptoms (vomiting, diarrhea) • Has your child received any fever reducing medication in the last 24 hours? • Do you or your child(ren) have any other signs of communicable illness such as a cold or flu?* If you answer yes to any of the above questions, your child may not attend program. *Answer yes if the symptom is NEW, DIFFERENT from how your child usually is, or UNEXPLAINED. Here are some examples. Your child has asthma. They often cough with exercise or allergies. They have their usual cough--- NO, this is not new or different. Their cough is worse than usual or sounds different than usual-- YES Your child complains that their muscles hurt all over. A day or two after exercising harder or doing much more physical activity than usual. They are look well except for feeling sore. -NO, this is not new or different They haven’t done any unusual physical activity, and they look ill. - YES Your child has a sore throat. After eating a large bag of Sour Patch Kids. Their tongue hurts too. –NO Your child has a sore throat for no clear reason- YES STEP 2: FEVER CHECK If your child does not have symptoms, a staff person will take your child’s temperature to check for fever. When our staff members take temperatures, a temperature over 99 degrees Fahrenheit is considered a fever. This is because we use a special “no-touch” thermometer that may read slightly lower, especially when used outside. Cleaning & Disinfecting We have implemented enhanced cleaning and disinfecting measures to help reduce the spread of infectious illness. A staff member is dedicated to cleaning and disinfecting rooms, toys, and equipment while each group is playing outdoors. A focus is placed on high touch areas including door handles, sinks, toilets, and toys. Any toy that is difficult to clean and disinfect has been put away (i.e. plush toys, dress-up clothes, puppets). Anytime a child places a toy in their mouth, coughs or sneezes on a toy, it is taken out of rotation until it can be cleaned and disinfected. Personal Hygiene Staff and children follow a routine of hand washing with soap and water throughout the day. For example, we wash our hands when we arrive at the program, after using the washroom, before and after eating, after playing outdoors, after using a tissue, and any time hands are visibly soiled. Staff schedule hand washing routines into the day and demonstrate how to wash hands and monitor children while they wash their hands. When running water is not available, for example outdoors, children over the age of 2 years can use hand sanitizer. Staff monitor children using hand sanitizer to ensure it is applied properly. Staff will demonstrate for children how to cough and sneeze into the arm or shoulder. Anytime a child uses a tissue they are taught to discard the tissue in a garbage bin, and to wash their hands. As much as possible staff will remind children to avoid touching their face, eyes, nose and mouth. If a Child Becomes Ill While in Program In the event that a child shows any signs or symptoms of illness that cannot be explained, the parent will be called to immediately pick-up their child (you or a designated adult have to pick up within an hour of the phone call). If the parent is not available by phone, we will call the emergency contacts. If the child has siblings attending the program, siblings will also be sent home. If you do not pick up your child within the hour a $6.25 per minute, per child late fee may be charged. Reporting Suspected Cases of COVID-19 & Testing Public Health requires centers to report any suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19. In the event an individual is suspected of having COVID-19 the Public Health unit will advise the program Supervisor and parent of any requirements for testing, and/or self-isolation. Public Health will do contact tracing to determine who the individual came in close contact with at the center and will determine the requirement for closure of a room or center based on their findings. Parents will be notified of any exposures. Refund Policy The program WILL NOT reduce fees or provide refunds for planned absences, unplanned absences, unforeseen closures, or closures due to COVID-19. The only refunds that will be given will be for any illness where a child has been absent for more than 5 days. After the 5th day with a doctor’s note, we will provide a refund to families. Sick Policy IF YOUR CHILD HAS FLU LIKE SYMPTOMS OR A FEVER Stay home. Your child cannot attend the program that day. Contact your child’s regular doctor or clinic for advice. RETURNING TO CHILDCARE OR CAMP AFTER A FEVER OR SYMPTOMS OF COVID-19 If your child is tested, they can return after • A negative COVID-19 test and • 3 days with no fever, without taking medicines to lower a fever, like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin), and • 3 days since symptoms have improved. The symptoms do not have to be completely better. You must show proof of your child’s negative test, for example, the test result or a message from your clinic or test site that the test was negative. When your child gets tested, let the clinic or test site know that you will need this. This is usually the fastest way for your child to return to their program. If your child is not tested, they can return after • 10 days have passed since symptoms first appeared and • 3 days since symptoms improved and • 3 days with no fever, without taking medicines to lower a fever, like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Advil or Motrin). Exceptions: Doctor’s Note or Clinic Note Sometimes a child’s symptoms are clearly due to another cause, such as strep throat or hand-foot-and mouth disease. This is not common, but in this situation, your provider may choose to give you a note saying that your child can return to their program. This does not mean that your child does not have COVID-19. Many children with COVID-19 do not have any symptoms. It only means that a definitive cause has been found for the symptoms that kept your child out of their program. The note may be an e- mail, electronic message or part of an after-visit summary. If you child is ill with non-COVID symptoms they may return after being symptom free without the use of medication for 24-72 hours. Nutrition Children will be provided with an afternoon snack. Please bring in a morning snack and lunch for your child. Parents will be required to provide their child with a bagged lunch. Please ensure all containers are labelled with your child’s name, and that any products that contain or may have come in contact with nuts are not sent. We do not refrigerate or heat up lunch items for the children. We hope this information was helpful and answered many of the questions we have been getting regarding enrollment. Please contact myself at laura.armanino@ssf.net or 650-875-6951 or Kimberly Morrison at Kimberly.morrison@ssf.net 650-875-6950 for more information. Please turn in your form or provide us the information on it by the August 14th deadline. Stay safe, take care and be kind, Laura Armanino City of South San Francisco Recreation & Community Services Supervisor 650-875-6951 Staff Report DATE: August 18, 2020 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Recreation Manager SUBJECT: 2020/21 Proposed Fee Modifications RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission be apprised of proposed updates to the City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule; review and approve proposed fee modifications for programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department; and forward their recommendation to the City Council. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION New fees and fee modifications for the hundreds of classes and programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department (Department) must be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, with a recommendation forwarded to the City Council for final approval. All city fees are listed in the Master Fee Schedule, which is posted on the city’s website at www.ssf.net on the Finance Department’s page. On August 28, 2019, Council adopted a resolution approving a contract with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a comprehensive user fee analysis with the goal of identifying the actual cost of providing fee-related City services and understanding recovery levels for each fee. In order to determine the full cost of each user fee, extensive data was collected utilizing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Budget as well as staff time estimates and service volume data. In working with Matrix, Finance staff examined the following as part of the fee study: • Ensuring that fee calculations followed federal, state, and local guidelines; • Understanding the current cost to provide these services; and • Establishing fees that reasonably recover the City’s cost to provide each service. The draft "Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study" and proposed FY 2020/21 Master Fee Schedule that have been reviewed at the August 3, 2020 City Council Budget Subcommittee meeting is included as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. The study provides data related to current service levels and the cost and demand for those services, and identifies the maximum fees that can be Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: 2020/21 Proposed Fee Modifications Page: 2 charged for those services. In addition, the study provides the framework for assessing legal, financial, and policy issues associated with establishing those fees for service. The proposed FY 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule is based upon the results of the study and contains a description by department of each user fee – both current and recommended fee amounts. Propositions 218 and 26 amended Article XIII C of the California Constitution place restrictions on local government’s ability to levy charges. Among the restrictions is a limitation on most user fees, prohibiting them from exceeding the reasonable cost of the service for which they are collected. Most fees charged by the Parks and Recreation Department are one of the exceptions to these regulations, giving the Department some flexibility to set fees at market rate. These fees, such as those for recreation classes and childcare programs, are not listed in Attachment 2 because the fees are usually included in seasonal activity guides to reflect the specific price and offerings for each season. Most of the Department’s fees remaining on the Master Fee Schedule are related to facility and picnic rentals, which have been included to show a cost of service analysis because the fees remain consistent regardless of the season. Historically, the Department’s practice has been to implement fee increases between 2% to 5% every other year, tied to cost of living increases and/or negotiated salary increases. The goal has been to maintain the percentage that programs are cost-covering using direct costs, and to keep pace with rates in the private sector and other agencies. This helps to avoid the need to make large increases to catch up to going rates. In 2016/17, the only substantive change to the Master Fee Schedule was a correction to change the Protected Tree Permit fee from $100 per permit to $100 per tree. Other minor changes were made to better align and rename fees to match current program offerings. In 2017/18, a 5% increase was implemented. In 2018/19, a 3% increase was applied to recreation class fees to fund the addition of a 0.5 FTE Office Specialist to support the Classes Program. Also in 2018/19, fees for the Aquatics, Sports, and Senior Services Programs were subject to a fee study that resulted in decreasing non-resident fees, with no change being made to other fees. And in 2019/20, a 3.5% across the board increase was implemented. In the current fiscal year, 2020/21, a 3% increase across the board is being proposed over last year’s fees in alignment with the 3% increase made to most fees citywide. The recommendation is widely based on the rise of labor costs and parallels the average percentage increase in employee compensation. See Attachment 3 for a complete list of Parks and Recreation fees that have been excluded from the proposed 2020/21 Master Fee Schedule in Attachment 2 Timeline Typically, budget planning activities for the new fiscal year including any changes to the Master Fee Schedule occur in the spring so that changes can take effect on July 1, the first day of the new fiscal year. COVID-19 delayed these activities, as well as presented the City with severe budget challenges. The remaining timeline for adoption of proposed changes to the Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2020/21 is as follows: • August 18, 2020 – Parks and Recreation Commission review and approve changes to the Master Fee Schedule (Attachment 2) and fee listing in Attachment 3. Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: August 18, 2020 Subject: 2020/21 Proposed Fee Modifications Page: 3 • August 26, 2020 – Special City Council Meeting, Study Session on the Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2020-2021 • September 9 – Regular City Council meeting to adopt the Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 20202021 Based upon the current City Council meeting schedule, if adopted by Council, the fees would become effective on November 22, 2020. SUMMARY Staff strives to provide the highest level of service possible, and has been successful for many years in keeping programs and services among the most affordable in the area. Commission and public input is extremely valuable in evaluating the fairness and equitability of how this can be accomplished. While staff is mindful of recovering the cost of service, the Department also looks at similar fees and services offered by like agencies when considering fee changes. Attachment 4 provides a high level comparison of such fees for the Commission’s consideration. If the Commission approves of the proposed fee modifications, these changes will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. By: Angela Duldulao Recreation Manger Attachments: 1. Draft Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study 2. Draft FY 2020/21 Master Fee Schedule 3. Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing 2020-2021 4. Parks and Recreation Fee Comparison (2020) Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 2020 matrix consulting group Attachment 1 Table of Contents 1.Introduction and Executive Summary 1 2.Legal Framework and Policy Considerations 4 3.User Fee Study Methodology 8 4.Results Overview 11 5.Administrative Services 12 6.Housing 16 7.Planning 18 8.Building 22 9.Fire 29 10.Engineering 37 11.Development Services Surcharges 43 12.Water Quality Control 48 13.Police 51 14.Library 54 15.Parks and Recreation 56 16.Comparative Survey 62 17.Cost Recovery Considerations 91 ATTACHMENT A – Consolidated Fee Results Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 1.Introduction and Executive Summary The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the City of South San Francisco. 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost of service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following departments: Building, City Clerk, City Manager, Engineering, Finance, Fire, Housing, Library, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police, and Water Quality Control. The results of this Study provide a tool for understanding current service levels, the cost and demand for those services, and what fees for service can and should be charged. 2 GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a Department or Program. Once time spent for a fee activity is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City: Table 1: Cost Components Overview Cost Component Description Direct Fiscal Year 2019/20 Budgeted salaries, benefits and allowable expenditures. Indirect Division, departmental, and Citywide administration / management and clerical support. Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing any particular service, regardless of whether a fee for that service is charged. The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service involved the following steps: •Departmental Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed Departmental staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for addition of new fee items. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 •Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 19/20 were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model. •Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was established. •Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has reviewed and approved these documented results. A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report. 3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS When comparing Fiscal Year 19/20 fee-related budgeted expenditures with fee-related revenue generated in Fiscal Year 18/19 the City is over-recovering its costs by approximately $33,000 and recovering 100% of its fee-related costs. The following table outlines these results on a departmental basis: Table 2: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis Department Revenue at Current Fee Total Annual Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery % Planning $370,040 $608,464 ($238,424) 61% Building $5,843,1121 $5,443,550 $399,563 107% Fire - Prevention $2,842,269 $2,270,322 $571,947 125% Engineering $1,779,285 $2,090,706 ($311,421) 85% Water Quality $59,075 $447,608 ($388,533) 13% TOTAL $10,893,781 $10,860,650 $33,131 100% Planning, Engineering, and Water Quality show annual subsidies that range from a low of $238,000 to a high of $389,000. Building and Fire have surpluses of approximately $400,000 and $572,000 respectively. While the detailed documentation of the Study will show an over-collection for few fees (on a per unit basis), and an undercharge for most others, overall, the City is providing an annual subsidy to fee payers for all services included in the analysis. The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among Council members and City staff, and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the Council should act. The setting of the 1 Building revenue was annualized to reflect work done in a singular fiscal year. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 “rate” or “price” for services, whether at 100 percent full cost recovery or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the Council, with input from City staff and the community. 4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal Cost Recovery Policy, and a mechanism for the annual update of fees for service. 1 Adopt a Formal Cost Recovery Policy The Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the Council adopt a formalized, individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other revenue sources. The Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice. 2 Adopt an Annual Fee Update / Increase Mechanism The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level estimates and assumptions applied in the previous study, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures. The Matrix Consulting Group believes it is a best management practice to perform a complete update of a Fee Assessment every 3 to 5 years. In between comprehensive updates, the City could utilize published industry economic factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost calculations established in the Study on an annual basis. Alternatively, the City could also consider the use of its own anticipated labor cost increases such as step increases, benefit enhancements, or cost of living raises. Utilizing an annual increase mechanism would ensure that the City receives appropriate fee and revenue increases that reflect growth in costs. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations A “user fee” is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group. In California, several constitutional laws such as Propositions 13, 4, and 218, State Government Codes 66014 and 66016, and more recently Prop 26 and the Attorney General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the user fees typically administered by local government are established and administered. Specifically, California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees charged by local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged”. 1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities. While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received: Table 3: Services in Relation to Benefit Received “Global” Community Benefit “Global” Benefit and an Individual or Group Benefit Individual or Group Benefit • Police • Park Maintenance • Recreation / Community Services • Fire Suppression / Prevention • Building Permits • Planning and Zoning Approval • Site Plan Review • CUPA • Facility Rentals Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global benefit” section tend to be funded primarily through voter approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fee, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual / group benefit” section of the table, lie the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue. The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees: Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 • Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large. • A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees. In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval. Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service. 2 GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received. Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or the Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery: • Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee at all. An example includes time spent copying and retrieving public documents. • Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for charging a water heater in residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit. • Effect on demand for a particular service. Sometimes raising the “price” charged for services might reduce the number of participants in a program. This is largely the case in Recreation programs such as camps or enrichment classes, Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 where participants may compare the City’s fees to surrounding jurisdictions or other options for support activities. • Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual. Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the community as a whole. Examples include Recreation programs, Planning Design Review, historical dedications and certain types of special events. The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing services, and assure that the City complies with State law. 3 PARKS AND RECREATION SPECIFIC REGULATIONS There are specific rules and regulations within the State Law that impact Parks and Recreation related activities directly. These can be separated into two categories – rental rates and recreation programs. The following points provide further information regarding these items: 1. Rental Rates: One of the exceptions to the tax category under proposition 26 is a charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, or rental, or lease of local government property 2 . There is no requirement that these rates must be limited to the cost of service, as they can be dependent upon a variety of features of the facility or park being rented. 2. Recreation Programs: Under Proposition 26, the exception to the tax category is a charge that is “imposed”. Based upon the League of California Cities implementation guide for Proposition 26, as well as other legal opinions, recreation classes, youth sports, adult sports, are not a charge that is “imposed upon residents”. Rather residents have the option to voluntarily participate in those programs and utilize a private entity (non-governmental entity) for those activities. Therefore, these rates are allowed to be set based upon the market options within the area rather than being restricted to the cost of service being provided. Utilizing these two principals is key to understanding the results generated through this analysis. As such, any surpluses reflected in the report do not need to be reduced to the cost of service, as the fee amount(s) should be based upon the rates that the market can bear. 2 Proposition 26 Article XIII C(1)(e)(4) Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 4 SUMMARY OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate” or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than the full cost amount. The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a “grey area”. However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair, and legal. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 3. User Fee Study Methodology The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These components then build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation: The general steps utilized by the project team to determine allocations of cost components to a particular fee or service are: • Calculate fully burdened hourly rates by position, including direct & indirect costs; • Develop time estimates for each service included in the study; • Distribute the appropriate amount of the other cost components to each fee or service based on the staff time allocation basis, or another reasonable basis. The results of these allocations provide detailed documentation for the reasonable estimate of the actual cost of providing each service. The following sections highlight critical points about the use of time estimates and the validity of the analytical model. 1 TIME ESTIMATES ARE A MEASURE OF SERVICE LEVELS REQUIRED TO PERFORM A PARTICULAR SERVICE One of the key study assumptions utilized in the “bottom up” approach is the use of time estimates for the provision of each fee related service. Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed these estimates. The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria: • Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Estimates for extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored into this analysis. DIRECT (Salaries, Benefits, Services, Supplies) INDIRECT (Deptment Admin, Services Supplies, Citywide Overhead etc.) Total Cost Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 • Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a service. • Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the division / department, and often involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized. • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their experience with other agencies. • Estimates were not based on time in motion studies, as they are not practical for the scope of services and time frame for this project. The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service for which to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service, and meets the requirements of California law. The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or sometimes very large and complex projects, the Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons: • Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner. • Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts. • Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for permits or participating in programs. • Applicants may request assignment of less expensive personnel to their project. • Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes. Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate and itemized within the current fee schedule. 2 CROSS CHECKS ENSURE THE VALIDITY OF OUR ANALYTICAL MODEL In addition to the collection of time estimate data for each fee or service included in the User Fee Study, annual volume of activity data assumptions are also a critical component. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 By collecting data on the estimated volume of activity for each fee or service, a number of analyses are performed which not only provide useful information regarding allocation of staff resources, but also provide valuable cross checks that ensure the validity of each model. This includes assurance that 100% of staff resources are accounted for and allocated to a fee for service, or “other non-fee” related categories. Since there are no objectives to make a profit in establishing user fees, it is very important to ensure that services are not estimated at a level that exceeds budgeted resource capacity. By accounting for not more than 100% of staff resources, no more than 100% of costs will be allocated through the Study. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 4. Results Overview The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the City Council and Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for the community, and also to maintain control over the policy and management of these services. It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement. In general, a cost of service analysis takes a “snapshot in time”, where a fiscal year of adopted budgeted cost information is compared to the same fiscal year of revenue, and workload data available. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, the Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward. Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each major permit category including the following: • Modifications or Issues: discussions regarding any revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees. • “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable). • Jurisdictional Comparison: a brief comparison of current permits and services with other local jurisdictions. The full analytical results were provided to Department staff under separate cover from this summary report. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 5. Administrative Services The Administrative Services section of the fee schedule consists of fees from the City Clerk, City Manager, and Finance Departments. These departments provide services that benefit not only internal city departments, but also city residents and visitors. The focus of this analysis is only on the services provided to city residents and visitors for which fees are assessed, including: Film Applications, Business Licenses, and Cannabis Operator Fees. The following subsections discuss any proposed fee schedule modifications, the detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In discussions with Administrative Services staff, the following changes were made to each Departments’ fee schedules: • City Clerk: A review of the current fee structure concluded that a fee for Candidate Processing needed to be added. • City Manager: The Film Permit fee was renamed to Film Application in order to better reflect the service being provided. • Finance: Two additional fees were added to the schedule: Business License Copy and Business License Certificate Reprint. The minor modifications noted above will allow for a clearer display of the services being offered to residents and visitors. 2 DETAILED RESULTS The City Clerk, City Manager, and Finance departments collect fees for a variety of services such as film applications, business licenses, and cannabis operations. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service. Table 4: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Administrative Services Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) CITY CLERK Transcripts Folio Rate Actual Cost Actual Cost Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) Additional Copies $0.10 $0.25 ($0.15) Subpoena Processing Fees Complying with each subpoena and delivering records to attorney, attorney's representative, or deposition officer $16 $15 $1 Clerical costs incurred in locating and making records available $26 $24 $2 Standard reproduction of documents 8 1/2 x 14 inches or less $0.20 $0.10 $0.10 Standard reproduction of larger size documents $0.30 Actual Cost Daily cost for City employee required to remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoena $291 $275 $16 Campaign and Candidate Fees Campaign Disclosure Statements (FPPC) $0.10 $0.10 $0.00 Candidate Statements $600 Actual Cost Candidate Processing Fee $25 Other Fees Preparing Proof of Residence Letter or Notarizing Proof of Living Documents $9 $15 ($6) Postage Actual Cost Actual Cost All Photocopies $0.10 $0.25 ($0.15) CITY MANAGER Film Application Permit $573 $289 $284 FINANCE Business License: Master List $9 $11 ($2) Monthly Update $9 $11 ($2) Business License Copy $0.25 $0.25 $0 Business License Certificate Reprint $10 $11 ($1) Overdue Invoices 1% of Bill Monthly Cannabis Operator Fees Cannabis Operator Permit Application $7,791 $9,676 ($1,885) Cannabis Business Inspection $373 $468 ($95) Cannabis Operator Permit $15,809 $18,343 ($2,534) Miscellaneous Fee Returned Checks Due to Insufficient Funds $25 $25 $0 Subsequent Returned Checks $35 $35 $0 The majority of City Clerk fees are set by the State of California with the exception of the transcripts folio rate, which is charged based on actual costs. The following points highlight which City Clerk fees are set by outside authorities, and the associated reference codes: • Copies and Photocopies: can be charged up to $0.25 per page based on the Public Records Act. • Subpoena Processing: is regulated by Evidence Code section 1563. Daily cost for City employees required to remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoena cannot be charged at more than $275 per Government Code section 68096.1. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 • Campaign Discloser Statements: are set by Government Code 81008 at $0.10 per page. Candidate statements are governed by Election Code section 13307, which states that actual costs can be recovered. Candidate processing fees are set by Election Code section 10228, and are set at $25. • Notary: fees are set by Government Code 12195(e) at $15 per signature. While the actual cost for some of the processes noted above may exceed the regulations regarding those services, the City cannot set fees for these services higher than stated regulations. The only fee charged by the City Manager’s Department is for Film Application. While this service currently shows an over-recovery of $284, this is due to a change in application processing. Previously, this process included time associated with various departments to review and comment on an application. The current process and cost reflects only time associated with staff within the City Manager’s office to accept and review the application. All of the fees charged by Finance show an under-recovery. Business License related fees have minimal subsidies of about $1 to $2, while Cannabis Operator fees have much higher subsidies of between $95 and $2,534. Similar to City Clerk fees, Returned Check fees are governed by the State (Civil Code section 1719), and set at $25 and $35 respectively. Business License copies fall under the Public Records Act, and cannot be charged more than $0.25 per page. 3 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION FEE The City of South San Francisco is assessed a fee from credit card companies for any transactions that require the use of credit cards. The City currently charges a 2.20% surcharge on all transactions above a $1,000 to recover the costs associated with fees incurred. Through this study, the project team worked with City staff to determine the appropriate surcharge amount. In order to calculate the surcharge, the project team divided the total expenses billed to the city by the credit card company by the total charges made against those credit card transactions. The following table shows this calculation: Table 5: Credit Card Transaction Fee Calculation Category Amount Credit Card Fee Charges $23,966 Credit Card Transaction Amount $786,214 Credit Card Fee Rate 3% Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 Based upon a sample of credit card fee charges and total transaction amounts the city’s updated surcharge should be 3%. The increase to 3% will capture the increased fees charged to the City based upon the increased utilization of credit cards to pay for services. The City currently has a policy to only charge this surcharge on transactions above a $1,000; however, the bank charges the City regardless of the transaction amount. The City should consider reviewing and updating this policy to lower the threshold amount, as many permitted activities and fees are below the $1,000 threshold; which limits the City’s ability to then appropriately recover for the costs incurred. 3 ANNUAL RESULTS Due to the minimal nature of fees charged by City Clerk, City Manager, and Finance, along with the lack of specific permit / workload data, annual impacts were not calculated for these services. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 6. Housing The Housing Division is responsible for managing the City’s affordable housing program, which includes creating affordable housing units, regulating the program, and monitoring compliance with City regulations. The City does not currently have fees associated with housing program services. The following subsections outline how a fee structure was determined, and the total cost calculated for each proposed service. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS As noted above, the Housing Division does not currently charge fees for its services. Through the course of this study a fee structure was developed to reflect the services provided by the Housing Division that relate to Development Applications, Initial Sale or Lease Up of BMR Units, BMR Monitoring, Refinancing, and Real Estate Transactions. This structure will enable the Housing Division to charge for its services associated with managing the city’s affordable housing program. The proposed fee structure is presented in the following section. 2 DETAILED RESULTS The proposed fee structure for the Housing Division includes charging fees for items such as affordable housing application, initial sale of 10-50 BMR units, and refinancing a single- family home. The total cost calculated for each Housing service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name and the total cost associated with each service. Table 6: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Housing Services Fee Name Total Cost Per Unit Development Application Including Affordable Housing Application (review BMR Plan) $514 Agreement Preparation $579 Agreement Preparation - with waiver or Modification $966 Initial Sale of For-Sale BMR Units $0 Less than 10 BMR units $282 10-50 BMR units $334 More than 50 BMR units $462 Consultant Costs Actual Cost Initial Lease Up of Rental BMR Units Less than 10 BMR units $282 10-50 BMR units $334 More than 50 BMR units $462 Non-profit, fully-affordable project $128 Consultant Costs Actual Cost Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 17 Fee Name Total Cost Per Unit BMR Monitoring Condos (per unit) $51 Rentals (per development) $166 Refinance and or Subordination of Agreement or Loan Single Family or Condo $322 Multi-Family $733 Payoff Demand $51 Resale Administration - Single Family / Condo $1,628 Real Estate Transactions Initial Consideration for Purchase Offers $847 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility TEFRA Hearing $1,252 The above table outlines the full cost associated with providing Housing services related to affordable housing. The City should review these costs, and determine what if any fees should be charged, and at what level of cost recovery is appropriate. 3 ANNUAL RESULTS As the City does not currently charge any housing fees, annual workload / volume data has not been collected; therefore, annual revenue calculations could not be assessed. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 18 7. Planning The Planning Division is responsible for reviewing development related projects to ensure compliance with zoning procedures and development standards. The division is also responsible for design reviews, general plan, use permits, zoning ordinance, and historical reviews. Fees examined in this study relate to development review and include fees such as Conditional Use Permits, Master Licensing Agreements, and Design Reviews. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts for Planning services. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In discussions with Planning staff, only a few minor modifications were made to the current fee schedule, including: • Combination of fees: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to the City Council is currently being charged by type of appellant (i.e. applicant, adjacent property owner, city resident, homeowners association, or other). This has been combined into a singular fee that will be charged per appeal. • Removal of fees: Fees for Economic and Community Development Parking Exemption and District Annexation are no longer being processed by the division and therefore were removed from the schedule. • New fees: Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance Reviews and Short Term Rental Applications are new services being provided by the Division for which they would like assess a fee and recover costs. While Building Plan reviews have been conducted in the past, the addition of these services to the fee schedule will allow the Division to better account for the services they provide. The adjustments and additions noted above will provide applicants with a better reflection of the services being provided by the Division. 2 DETAILED RESULTS The Planning Division collects fees for items such as multi-family conditional use permits, zoning amendments, specific plans, variances, commercial and industrial design reviews, and tentative parcel maps among others. The total cost calculated for each Planning service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title/name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 Table 7: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Planning Division Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) PRE-APPLICATION MEETING Small Project (Single Family Res. / Comm. Façade) $2,000 $404 $1,596 Medium Project (Non-Residential up to 10 Units) $2,000 $1,213 $787 Large Project (Non-Residential over 10 unites) $2,000 $6,173 ($4,173) PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATIONS Conditional Use Permit / Site Development Review Multi-Family Residential or Civic Use $3,461 $14,327 ($10,866) All Others $4,488 $10,284 ($5,796) Modification $2,333 $5,231 ($2,898) Minor Use Permit Residential $1,900 $2,603 ($703) All Others $1,725 $2,199 ($474) Small Cell $1,390 Design Review - Signs Type A (up to 25 sq.ft.) $173 $580 ($407) Type B (up to 100 sq.ft.) $862 $969 ($107) Type C / Master Sign $1,725 $2,199 ($474) Design Review Single Family Residential / New or Additions to 2 to 3 Units $1,212 $2,603 ($1,391) Multi-Family Residential / Subdivisions 4 of More Units / Modifications / Additions to 4 of More Units $2,161 $3,412 ($1,251) Commercial and Industrial $2,559 $3,816 ($1,257) Projects Requiring Planning Commission Approval $1,464 $5,029 ($3,565) Resubmitted (after 2 reviews by Design Review Board) $1,509 $2,199 ($690) Environmental Categorical Exemption $173 $287 ($114) Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration and other Contract Planning Studies $5,175 $16,348 ($11,173) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $10,349 $20,391 ($10,042) Environmental Document Prepared by 3rd Party Actual Cost Subdivisions Tentative Subdivision Map $862 $2,603 ($1,741) Tentative Parcel Map $173 $2,199 ($2,026) Transportation Demand Management Plan: Initial Filing Fee $1,208 $2,603 ($1,395) Annual Monitoring (plus survey cost) $1,725 $1,795 ($70) Tri-annual $1,725 $1,795 ($70) Other Public Hearing Applications Variance $4,312 $9,274 ($4,962) Master Plan $20,898 $17,359 $3,539 Development Agreement $18,422 $13,316 $5,106 Planned Unit Development $9,844 $14,327 ($4,483) Precise Plan $9,844 $8,263 $1,581 Precise Plan Modification (Residential Only) $6,391 $6,242 $149 Temporary Use Permit $1,647 $1,209 $438 Zoning Amendment (Text) $8,625 $15,337 ($6,712) Rezoning Map $8,625 $11,295 ($2,670) Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 20 Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) Specific Plan $21,074 $18,369 $2,705 General Plan Amendments $9,841 $18,774 ($8,933) Modifications & Waivers Minor (Staff Review) $259 $855 ($596) Major (Planning Commission Review) $1,725 $3,007 ($1,282) Time Extensions Non-Conforming Use $862 $2,963 ($2,101) Time Extension for all Other Permits and Maps $862 $2,154 ($1,292) Appeals: Appeal of the Chief Planner’s decision to the Planning Commission $862 $4,220 ($3,358) Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to City Council $1,725 $5,231 ($3,506) MISCELLANEOUS FEES Minor Changes to Approved Permit $173 $1,795 ($1,622) Inspection Fees: Additional visits $345 $383 ($38) Certificate of Alteration $1,725 $3,007 ($1,282) Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (taxi) $173 $1,390 ($1,217) Sidewalk Dining Permit (Annual) $518 $540 ($22) Site Clearance / Zoning Verification Letter $173 $179 ($6) Zoning Verification Review $833 $899 ($66) Legal Notices $518 $383 $135 Zoning Administrator Decision $862 $1,592 ($730) Short Term Rental Application $0 $784 ($784) PLANNING SUPPORT TO BUILDING Single Family Residential (New or Remodel) $606 Multi-Family / Commercial / Industrial (New or Tenant Improvement) 5% of Building Permit Fee MASTER LICENSING AGREEMENTS (CELL TOWERS) City Owned Poles Master Agreement $4,347 $4,000 deposit Privately Owned Poles Administrative $983 $1,000 deposit Attachment Fee / Annual Rent $1,553 $1,553 $0 The majority of Planning fees show an under-recovery, with subsidies ranging from a low of $6 for Site Clearance / Zoning Verification Letters to a high of $11,173 for Environmental Documents including Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration and other Contracted Planning Studies. There are a handful of services which show a surplus, which range from a low of $135 for Legal Notices to a high of $5,106 for Development Agreements. The majority of these surpluses are due to streamlined processes which result in less time on task and lower per unit costs, however, the surplus for Development Agreements is due to converting the fee from a deposit to a flat fee. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 21 3 ANNUAL RESULTS In order to understand how the per unit results presented in the previous section could impact Planning’s revenue on an annual basis, workload volume for FY18/19 was collected. The project team then compared annual revenue based on current fees to projected revenue based on the full cost of providing services. This analysis shows that the Planning Division has an annual subsidy of approximately $238,000. The following table shows the annual workload volume for FY18/19, projected revenue at current fee, projected annual cost, and the associated annual surplus / deficit. Table 8: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis – Planning Division Fee Name Recoverable Volume Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Pre-Application Meeting 12 $24,000 $14,554 $9,446 Conditional Use Permit 20 $85,652 $221,854 ($136,202) Minor Use Permit 6 $10,350 $13,193 ($2,843) Design Review – Signs 41 $18,813 $33,381 ($14,568) Design Review 47 $87,700 $149,837 ($62,137) Subdivisions 2 $1,724 $5,206 ($3,482) Transportation Demand Management Plan 5 $6,040 $13,016 ($6,976) Other Public Hearing Modifications 10 117,058 129,927 (12,869) Modifications & Waivers 1 $259 $855 ($596) Appeals 2 $3,450 $10,462 ($7,012) Miscellaneous Fees 18 $14,994 $16,180 ($1,186) TOTAL $370,040 $608,464 ($238,424) Overall, the Planning Division is recovering approximately 61% of its fee related costs. The largest source of the Division’s deficit relates to Conditional Use Permits, which compromise approximately $136,000 of the $238,000 deficit. While there are only about 20 applications that relate to Conditional Use Permits, the per unit subsidies range between $5,800 and $11,000. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 22 8. Building The City of South San Francisco provides plan check and inspection services in-house, supplemented with contract plan checkers. The purpose of the Building Division, part of the Economic and Community Development Department, is to review all construction projects (residential and commercial) to ensure compliance with the California Building Code and its rules and regulations. The following subsections discuss modifications made to the Building fee structure, the detailed per unit analysis results, and potential annual revenue impacts. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS The Building fee schedule consists of both flat fees and valuation based fees, both of which were studied. The project team worked with the Building Division to streamline the current fee structure by modifying structures and adding new flat fees. The following points highlight some of these changes: • For all new construction projects (residential and commercial) the plan check and inspection (permit) fee is inclusive of structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and green energy reviews and inspections. • Plan Check Fees were converted from valuation tables to percentage of the building permit fee to help streamline the fee schedule and simplify the plan check fee calculation process. For commercial plan check fees, a tiered percentage structure was developed depending upon the scope of the project and valuation. • Incorporation of Title 24 Energy Plan Check Surcharge into the proposed plan check fees to minimize the number of surcharges added to fees. • Flat Fees were added for common residential permits such as kitchen and bath remodels, water heaters, furnace replacement, reroofs, etc. • Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing fees were converted from valuation-based to be based on a percentage of the building permit fee. This allows the division to not have to collect trade specific valuation, but rather evaluate these trades in the context of the larger building permit for any commercial tenant improvements. • Creation of new over-the-counter (OTC) or standalone mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) permits to capture any miscellaneous or standalone permits. Identifying and implementing these changes to the Building fee structure have helped to clarify the fee schedule, increase consistency of application of fees, and reduced the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 23 complexity in relation to both internal staff and developers determining the full fees associated with their development projects. 2 DETAILED RESULTS – FLAT FEES The Building Division currently assesses a variety of permits for over the counter or simplified permits, such as reroofs, photovoltaic, residential remodels, etc. The following table details the current fees associated with Flat Fees Permits, the full cost associated with Building to provide these services, and the surplus / deficit. Table 9: Building Flat Fees – Per Unit Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit Inspections Or Re-Inspections Outside Normal Business Hours $112 $212 ($100) Re-Inspections During Normal Hours $112 $189 ($77) Permit Process - Initial Project Input, Fee Collection (New / Existing Residential, Commercial, and MF) $224 $260 ($36) Additional Plan Review Required by Changes, Additions or Revisions to Approved Plans $56 Actual Cost OTC or Standalone MEP Permit $276 Photovoltaic: Commercial Photovoltaic $391 $608 ($217) Residential Photovoltaic $224 $276 ($52) Residential Miscellaneous Fees: Residential Water Heater $125 $137 ($12) Residential Reroof $350 $512 ($162) Residential Garage Door $125 $324 ($199) Residential Kitchen Update $350 $654 ($304) Residential Bath Update $250 $467 ($217) Residential Furnace Replacement $125 $184 ($59) Residential Service Upgrade $150 $231 ($81) Residential Lateral Replacement $150 $184 ($34) Residential EV Charger $130 $279 ($149) Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO) Review: Small (500 - 2,500 square feet) $493 Large (2,500+ square feet) $1,213 The Division is under-recovering for all of its current flat fees for building permits. The under-recovery ranges from a low of $12 for a water heater to a high of $304 associated with residential kitchen updates. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 24 3 DETAILED RESULTS – VALUATION-BASED FEES The City of South San Francisco currently uses a valuation table to establish plan check and permit fees for all Construction Projects that is based on the value of construction costs. There are currently five different valuation tables utilized by the City: 1. Building Inspection 2. Plan Check – Existing Residential 3. Plan Check – New Residential and All Commercial (New and Existing) 4. Plan Check – Mechanical and Plumbing 5. Plan Check – Electrical As discussed in the modifications section, the project team worked with City staff to modify the current structure to simplify the fee calculation and administration process. The project team reduced the five valuation tables into two valuation tables – Residential Permit (New and Remodels) and Commercial / Multi-Family (New and Tenant Improvements). For Plan Check fees, they were established as a percentage of the building permit fee, and similarly mechanical, electrical, and plumbing fees were established as a percentage. The following subsections discuss the residential and commercial valuation-based tables calculated for the City. 1 Detailed Results – Residential Valuation While the City currently has two separate plan check valuation-based tables for residential, it only has a singular table for building permit fees. Through this study as many simplified residential permits were identified as flat fees, it was determined that a singular valuation-based table was still appropriate for all new and existing residential projects. The following table outlines the valuation range, current fee, total cost per unit, and the associated surplus / (deficit): Table 10: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Residential Building Permit Fees Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current Permit Fee Total Cost Permit Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Project Valuation: $1 to $500 $84.00 $189.47 ($105.47) Project Valuation: $501 to $2,000 First $500 $84.00 $189.47 ($105.47) Each Additional $100 or fraction thereof $2.00 $9.47 ($7.47) Project Valuation: $2,001 to $25,000 First $2,001 $112.00 $331.57 ($219.57) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $24.00 $18.53 $5.47 Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000 First $25,001 $672.00 $757.87 ($85.87) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $27.00 $32.84 ($5.84) Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 25 Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current Permit Fee Total Cost Permit Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000 First $50,001 $1,342.00 $1,578.89 ($236.89) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $13.42 $13.58 ($0.16) Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000 First $100,001 $2,014.00 $2,257.81 ($243.81) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $8.39 $7.70 $0.69 Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000 First $500,001 $5,371.00 $5,336.65 $34.35 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $16.11 $5.75 $10.36 Project Valuation: $1,000,001 to $3,000,000 First $1,000,001 $9,398.00 $8,210.22 $1,187.78 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.68 $2.84 ($1.16) Project Valuation: $3,000,001 to $5,000,000 First $3,000,001 $16,781.00 $13,894.22 $2,886.78 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $2.07 $3.16 ($1.09) Project Valuation: $5,000,001 and above First $5,000,001 $20,138.00 $20,209.78 ($71.78) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.89 $1.58 ($0.69) As the table indicates, the City is generally under-recovering for its costs up until about the $500,000 project range, at which point, the city is currently slightly over-recovering. This is primarily due to the fact that currently the City has a singular permit table that is applicable to both residential and commercial projects. While many commercial projects can get extremely complex the higher the valuation, many times residential projects simply are larger rather than more complex. Additionally, as discussed, the City previously had two different types of plan check fees associated with residential projects. The project team worked with City staff to simplify the two tables into a singular percentage. The full cost associated with Residential Plan Check will be 65% of the Residential Building Permit fee. To provide comparison, for a new residential project the current fee for a project valued at $500,001 would be $3,357; whereas now it would be $3,469, so representing about a $100 difference. Overall, the changes to the residential fee schedule more accurately and simplistically represent the level of effort incurred by City staff as it relates to conducting plan check and inspections. 2 Detailed Results – Commercial / Multi-Family Valuation The City currently only has a singular table for commercial plan check and for commercial inspection. Through this study the project team worked with staff to review the assumptions behind those tables and where appropriate updated those assumptions. The following table outlines the valuation range, current fee, total cost per unit, and the associated surplus / (deficit): Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 26 Table 11: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Commercial / Multi-Family Permit Fees Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current Permit Fee Total Cost Permit Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Project Valuation: $1 to $500 $84.00 $94.73 ($10.73) Project Valuation: $501 to $2,000 First $500 $84.00 $94.73 ($10.73) Each Additional $100 or fraction thereof $2.00 $8.42 ($6.42) Project Valuation: $2,001 to $25,000 First $2,001 $112.00 $221.04 ($109.04) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $24.00 $12.01 $11.99 Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000 First $25,001 $672.00 $497.35 $174.65 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $27.00 $11.05 $15.95 Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000 First $50,001 $1,342.00 $773.66 $568.34 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $13.42 $25.58 ($12.16) Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000 First $100,001 $2,014.00 $2,052.56 ($38.56) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $8.39 $6.12 $2.27 Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000 First $500,001 $5,371.00 $4,499.83 $871.17 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $16.11 $9.88 ($1.83) Project Valuation: $1,000,001 to $3,000,000 First $1,000,001 $9,398.00 $9,441.76 ($43.76) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.68 $1.44 $0.24 Project Valuation: $3,000,001 to $5,000,000 First $3,000,001 $16,781.00 $12,315.34 $4,465.66 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $2.07 $6.22 ($4.15) Project Valuation: $5,000,001 to $10,000,000 First $5,000,001 $20,138.00 $24,756.98 ($4,618.98) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.89 $3.49 ($2.60) Project Valuation: $10,000,001 to $25,000,000 First $10,000,001 $24,613.00 $42,187.92 ($17,574.92) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.89 $3.79 ($2.90) Project Valuation: $25,000,001 to $50,000,000 First $25,000,001 $38,038.00 $98,996.35 ($60,958.35) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.45 $3.13 ($2.68) Project Valuation: $50,000,001 and above First $50,000,001 $49,226.00 $177,151.36 ($127,925,.36 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.98 $1.56 ($0.58) Similar to the residential permit fees, the Building Division is generally under-recovering its costs as it relates to commercial and multi-family projects. There are a couple of valuation-based ranges for which the City is currently over-recovering such as the $25,000 and $50,000 category. While those projects might be complex for residential projects, they are not necessarily as complex for commercial projects and as such the separation of the permit tables into two separate categories more accurately allows the City to capture the support. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 27 It was determined that similar to the residential projects, a streamlined approach of plan check as a percentage of the building permit fee would be utilized. However, instead of a singular plan check percentage, during discussion with staff it was determined that a tiered approach should be developed. The following table shows the proposed plan check percentage calculation: Table 12: Commercial / Multi-Family – Plan Check Calculation Project Valuation Total Cost Per Unit $1 - $50,000 60% of Building Permit Fee $50,000 - $1,000,000 65% of Building Permit Fee $1,000,000+ 75% of Building Permit Fee The concept behind utilizing the tiered system is to capture the different level of complexities. For projects at a lower valuation typically the plan check is not generally very complex and there is minimal back and forth between the city and the applicant. However, as projects gain in value, the plan check becomes slightly more complex. Additionally, while the city previously added a surcharge for Green Energy Title 24 Plan Check Fees, the proposed fee structure has incorporated that surcharge into the calculation for plan check fees. This will ensure that there is a simplified process for plan check fees. Lastly, the current Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing fees are all valuation-based upon the work of the trades and it was determined that these valuation-based fees should be removed as a separate valuation-table and calculated as a percentage of the building permit fee. Based upon discussion with staff and time estimate information it was calculated that for commercial / multi-family projects, the Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing fees would be 15% of the Commercial / Multi-Family Building Permit – per trade. The simplified process not only better captures the support provided by these types of fees but it also eliminates the need for permit technicians to ask developers the value of their individual trade work. This reduces the time spent at the counter associated with calculating fees and creates a more efficient process. 4 ANNUAL RESULTS The Building Division charges a variety of fees associated with residential and commercial projects. Additionally, the fees charged by the Building Division are collected in one year and may be applicable for work performed in later years. Therefore, to determine the true annual revenue impact associated with Building projects, the project team reviewed the City’s current Building Permit revenue data and annualized it. The annualized process included the following steps: • Recognizing all plan check revenue as single-year revenue • Recognizing all residential-based projects as single-year revenue Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 28 • Eliminating any outlier projects (i.e. $240 million and $74 million) as those projects would not repeat on an annual basis. • Spreading commercial inspection / permit fees over a two-year span. The revenue analysis conducted results in an annual calculation that more accurately reflects the revenue associated with the activities conducted in a single fiscal year, rather that the full amount of revenue collected in a fiscal year. The following table shows the Division’s calculated annual revenue at current fees, the total annual cost calculated through this study, and the resulting annual surplus / (deficit). Table 13: Annual Revenue Analysis – Building Category Revenue at Current Fee Total Annual Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Building Division $5,843,112 $5,443,550 $399,563 As the table indicates, the Division is currently over-recovering for its fees by approximately $400,000 annually. This over-recovery equates to a cost recovery level of 107%. The modifications being proposed to the Building Division’s fee schedule will more accurately enable it to capture the costs associated with its services. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 29 9. Fire The Fire Department is responsible for protecting South San Francisco residents from fires, medical emergencies, natural disasters, and hazardous materials. The Fire Department has three divisions: Administration, Fire Prevention, and Emergency Medical Services / Operations. Fees studied for the Fire Department relate to transport fees, training, fire prevention, fire and life safety, and fire protection systems. The following subsections discuss proposed fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts related to fee-related fire services. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In reviewing the current fee structure for Fire services, it was determined that modifications could be made that would enhance applicant’s understanding of the services offered, and how fees are applied. The following points highlight the modifications being proposed: • Removal of fees: Some fees were removed from the schedule as they reflect services that are no longer provided, including: Contracted BLS Inter Facility, Lead EKG Class, Pre-Inspection of Residential Care Facilities, Tire Storage, etc. Positional hourly rates were removed from the schedule, as specific services that are performed on an hourly basis utilize blended rates. • Renaming or reclassifying fees: Construction Without a Permit was renamed to Installation or Modification of a Fire Protection System Without a Permit. Institutions and Day Care Operational Permits were renamed to Child Care Center. Group R, Division 1 Occupancies and Group R, Division 2 with 3 or More Dwelling Units Per Building Inspection ranges were expanded to account for larger buildings. Operation Permits were split out into a flat fee plus a base fee. • New fees: First Responder, Facility Use, Emergency Responder Communication, and Outdoor Assembly Event permits were added to the fee schedule. The modifications made to the Fire department’s fee schedule better reflect the services that are being provided, and enable the department to more accurately collect fees for those services. 2 DETAILED RESULTS – FLAT FEES The Fire Department collects flat fees for items such as ALS transports, training classes, prevention inspections, and operational permits among others. The total cost calculated for each Fire Department service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 30 overhead. The following table details the title/name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service. Table 14: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire Department – Flat Fees Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) TRANSPORT FEES ALS I $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) ALS II $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) BLS (Emergency) $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) BLS (Non-Emergency) $704 $1,076 ($372) First Responder Fee $461 Mileage (All levels) $53 $23 $30 Oxygen $127 $137 ($10) FIRE SERVICE TRAINING First-Aid / Adult CPR / AED Classes for Residents (cost of textbook and certification card) $31 $37 ($6) First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Non-Residents $106 $37 $69 First-Aid / CPR Classes for SSF Businesses $58 $21 $37 Pediatric Education for Pre-hospital Professionals (For residents and non-residents) $127 $115 $12 American Heart Association "Professional Level" courses for the public and other outside agencies ACLS Knowledge and Skills Review Workshop $185 $949 ($764) Initial Recognition: Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) $248 $1,067 ($819) Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) $248 $949 ($701) Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS HCP) $80 $206 ($126) Re-recognition: Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) $201 $534 ($333) Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) $201 $474 ($273) Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS HCP) $53 $103 ($50) Other Training Service Other EMS Continuing Education Classes $8 $18 ($10) Emergency Response Team Class (Incl. Fire extinguisher training) $29 $139 ($110) Permit Required Confined Space Class $29 Actual Cost Hazardous Materials Responder Class $29 Actual Cost Technical Rescue Class $29 Actual Cost Vehicle Extrication Class $29 Actual Cost Other Fire Training Continuing Education Classes $29 $139 ($110) Student Materials, Supplies Required to Participate Actual Cost + 10% Admin Certification Fees required by Certifying Authority Actual Cost + 10% Admin Facility Use Fee (Classroom, Tower, or Grounds) Actual Cost + 10% Admin FIRE OPERATIONAL PERMITS (Base + Permit Fee) Base Operational Permit Fee 0-5,000 sq. ft. $145 5,001-10,000 sq. ft. $193 10,001-25,000 sq. ft. $241 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 31 Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) 25,001-50,000 sq. ft. $290 50,001-100,000 sq. ft. $386 100,001-500,000 sq. ft. $483 500,001-1,000,000 sq. ft. $579 No to Low Hazard Operational Permits Cellulose Nitrate Film $351 $80 $271 Child-care Center $351 $80 $271 ERRC System $351 $80 $271 Fire Alarm System $527 $80 $447 Large Family Day Care $351 $80 $271 Mobile Food Prep Vehicle $351 $80 $271 Permit Required Confined Space $351 $80 $271 Place of Assembly $351 $80 $271 Residential Care Facility $351 $80 $271 Medium Hazard Covered and Open Mall Building $351 $113 $238 Combustible Fibers $351 $113 $238 Dry Cleaning $527 $113 $414 Industrial Oven $351 $113 $238 Hospitals & Psychiatric Hospital $351 $113 $238 Liquid or Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly Buildings $351 $113 $238 Lumber Yard $703 $113 $590 Plant Extraction $351 $113 $238 Pyroxylin Plastics $351 $113 $238 Open Flame & Candles $176 $113 $63 Radioactive Materials $351 $113 $238 Refrigeration Equipment $176 $113 $63 Rooftop Heliports $351 $113 $238 Stationary Fuel Cell Power Systems $351 $113 $238 Storage of Scrap Tire $527 $113 $414 Waste Handling Facility $351 $113 $238 Wood Products $351 $113 $238 High Hazard Aerosol Products $351 $193 $158 Aviation Facility $351 $193 $158 Dust Producing $527 $193 $334 Compressed Gas $176 $193 ($17) Cryogenic Gas $527 $193 $334 Cutting and Welding $351 $193 $158 Explosives $351 $193 $158 Flammable / Combustible Liquids $527 $193 $334 Hazardous Materials $703 $193 $510 High Piled Storage $703 $193 $510 Liquefied Petroleum Gas $351 $193 $158 Magnesium $351 $193 $158 Miscellaneous Combustible Storage $351 $193 $158 Mobile of Hydrogen Fueled Vehicles $351 $193 $158 Motor Fuel Dispensing $351 $193 $158 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 32 Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) Repair Garages $351 $193 $158 Spraying or Dipping $351 $193 $158 Tire Rebuilding Plant $351 $193 $158 GROUP R - DIVISION 1 AND 2 OCCUPANCIES WITH 3 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS PER BUILDING 3-10 Units $264 $193 $71 11-100 Units $351 $386 ($35) 101-200 Units $1,406 $579 $827 201-300 Units $2,109 $772 $1,337 301-350 Units $2,812 $869 $1,943 > 351 Units, per 100 units $1,406 $290 $1,116 SPECIAL ACTIVITY PERMITS Candles or Open Flames in Assembly Areas $351 $366 ($15) Carnivals and Fairs $703 $366 $337 Christmas Tree Lots $703 $366 $337 Explosives or Blasting Agents $703 $366 $337 Fire Hydrants and Water-Control Valves $351 $366 ($15) Fireworks Displays by a Licensed Professional $703 $366 $337 Fumigation/Thermal Insecticide $176 $366 ($190) Outdoor Assembly Event $366 Parade Floats $351 $366 ($15) Temporary Membrane Structures (tents) $351 $366 ($15) Failure to Obtain a Permit 2x Permit Cost FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY – PLAN CHECK Additional Fire Plan Check Review – 4th submittal – 2 hour min $176 $209 ($33) OTHER FIRE PREVENTION INSPECTIONS Annual Fire Inspection (Basic) $264 $313 ($49) Annual High-rise Building (2 hour Minimum) $352 $417 ($65) New Occupancy / Business $351 $313 $38 Title 19, 5 Year Automatic Fire Sprinkler Certification $351 $399 ($48) Re-Inspection $176 $209 ($33) Inspection for Which a Fee is not Specifically Indicated $176 $209 ($33) Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours (2 hour minimum) $176 $253 ($77) Inspection Cancellation Fee $209 MISCELLANEOUS FIRE PREVENTION FEES Application for Use of Alternate Methods of Protection $264 $145 $119 Key Box Service $88 $114 ($26) Emergency Response DUI Cost Recovery Actual Cost Emergency Response Hazmat Cost Recovery Actual Cost Investigations $176 $209 ($33) Fire Watch Actual Cost Hazard Mitigation Fee (Includes all other incident types) Actual Cost Current subsidies identified range from a low of $6 for First-Aid / Adult CPR / AED Classes for Residents (excluding reproduction of reports) to a high of $1,057 for ALS and BLS Transportation. Over-recoveries identified range from a low of $12 for Pediatric Education for Pre-hospital Professionals (For residents and non-residents) to a high of $1,943 for Group R, Division 1 Occupancies and Group R, Division 2 with 3 or More Dwelling Units per Building for inspections of buildings with 301-350 units. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 33 The over-recoveries identified in the above table are largely due to the restructuring of categories. This is true for the majority of the fees that show an over recovery relating to operational permits. In the current schedule, these are flat fees, whereas the proposed structure is converting these to a base fee calculated on the square footage of the site to be inspected plus a flat fee for each operational permit type. 3 DETAILED RESULTS - VALUATION The Fire Department charges fees for Fire and Life Safety Plan Check, Fire Protection Systems Plan Check, and Fire Protection Systems Inspections based on the valuation of the project. The following subsections provide the detailed results for each of these fee categories. 1 Fire and Life Safety Plan Check Fire Prevention staff are responsible for reviewing building plans to ensure that fire and life safety standards are met. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following tables details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each valuation range. Table 15: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire Department – Fire and Life Safety Plan Check Project Value Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) Project Valuation: $1 to $6,000 $88.00 $203.00 ($115.00) Project Valuation: $6,001 to $25,000 First $6,000 $88.00 $202.66 ($114.66) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.24 $11.56 ($2.32) Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000 First $25,000 $176.00 $422.21 ($246.21) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $14.06 $21.62 ($7.56) Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000 First $50,000 $351.00 $962.64 ($611.64) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $42.16 $27.36 $14.80 Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000 First $100,000 $2,810.00 $2,330.59 $479.41 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $10.54 $7.98 $2.56 Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000 First $500,000 $7,027.00 $5,522.49 $1,504.51 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $8.44 $5.78 $2.66 Project Valuation: $1,000,001 to $3,000,000 First $1,000,000 $11,242.00 $8,410.40 $2,831.60 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.74 $2.46 $1.28 Project Valuation: $3,000,001 to $5,000,000 First $3,000,000 $18,737.00 $13,324.91 $5,412.09 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $5.62 $3.12 $2.50 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 34 Project Value Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) Project Valuation: $5,000,001 to $10,000,000 First $5,000,000 $29,979.00 $19,556.71 $10,422.29 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $2.25 $1.32 $0.93 Project Valuation: $10,000,001 to $25,000,000 First $10,000,000 $41,221.00 $26,143.16 $15,077.84 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.00 $0.76 $0.24 Project Valuation: $25,000,001 to $50,000,000 First $25,000,000 $56,211.00 $37,492.13 $18,718.87 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.30 $0.26 $0.04 Project Valuation: $50,000,001 + First $50,000,000 $63,705.00 $44,078.59 $19,626.41 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.27 $0.13 $1.14 Projects valued under $100,000 show an under-recovery, while projects greater than $100,000 are showing an over recovery. The total cost per unit reflects changes in processes and efficiencies implemented over time by the department, resulting in a reduction of costs associated with providing these services. 2 Fire Protection Systems Plan Check Fire Prevention staff are responsible for reviewing fire protection system plans to ensure that they are in compliance with the fire code, and meet or exceed the requirements for building occupancy. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following tables details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each valuation range. Table 16: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire Department – Fire Protection Systems Plan Check Project Value Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) Project Valuation: $1 to $6,000 $176.00 $321.00 ($145.00) Project Valuation: $6,001 to $25,000 First $6,000 $176.00 $320.88 ($144.88) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.24 $8.00 $1.24 Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000 First $25,000 $351.00 $471.48 ($120.48) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.51 $13.47 ($9.96) Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000 First $50,000 $439.00 $810.64 ($371.64) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.76 $5.07 ($3.31) Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000 First $100,000 $527.00 $1,063.97 ($536.97) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.31 $1.39 ($0.08) Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000 First $500,000 $1,054.00 $1,621.28 ($567.28) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.51 $3.45 $0.06 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 35 Project Value Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) Project Valuation: $1,000,001 + First $1,000,000 $2,810.00 $3,343.89 ($533.89) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.93 $0.76 $0.17 Fire Protection Systems Plan Check shows an under recovery for all ranges of project valuations. 3 Fire Protection Systems Inspection Fire Prevention staff are responsible for inspecting fire protection systems to ensure they match submitted plans, are properly installed, and functioning. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following tables details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each valuation range. Table 17: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire Department – Fire Protection Systems Inspection Project Value Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) Project Valuation: $1 to $6,000 $527.00 $439.10 $87.90 Project Valuation: $6,001 to $25,000 First $6,000 $527.00 $439.10 $87.90 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.24 $11.56 ($2.32) Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000 First $25,000 $703.00 $658.65 $44.35 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $14.06 $24.99 ($10.93) Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000 First $50,000 $1,054.00 $1,283.51 ($229.51) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $7.03 $6.76 $0.27 Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000 First $100,000 $1,406.00 $1,621.28 ($215.28) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $4.39 $5.40 ($1.01) Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000 First $500,000 $3,162.00 $3,782.99 ($620.99) Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $7.73 $3.92 $3.81 Project Valuation: $1,000,001 + First $1,000,000 $7,027.00 $5,742.04 $1,284.96 Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.88 $1.72 ($0.84) The first two valuation ranges and the last valuation range show an over-recovery, while the middle three ranges show subsidies. The total cost per unit incorporates the use of different staff and process efficiencies, which has resulted in some ranges showing an over-recovery. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 36 4 ANNUAL RESULTS In order to understand how the per unit results presented in the previous sections could impact Fire’s revenue on an annual basis, workload volume for FY18/19 was collected. The project team then compared annual revenue based on current fees to projected revenue based on the full cost of providing services. The following table shows the title / name, annual workload volume for FY18/19, projected revenue at current fee, projected annual cost, and the associated annual surplus / deficit. Table 18: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis - Fire Fee Name Recoverable Volume Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Flat Fees 1,331 $368,906 $282,102 $86,804 Fire Life Safety 212 $2,044,625 $1,464,122 $580,503 Fire Protection Plan Check 413 $140,541 $229,503 ($88,962) Fire Protection Inspection 346 $288,197 $294,596 ($6,399) TOTAL $2,842,269 $2,270,322 $571,946 The Fire Department shows a surplus of approximately $572,000. While the largest source of over-recovery relates to Fire Life Safety ($581,000), this is due to the incorporation of streamlined processes implemented over the past few years. The full cost amounts identified in the previous sections will align services being provided with the costs associated with those services. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 37 10. Engineering The Engineering Division is responsible for supporting its customers by providing technical, timely, and cost-effective solutions that promote environmentally sustainable infrastructures. Fees for service involve the regulation and facilitation of private development relating to: Encroachment Permits, Mapping Permits, Transportation Permits, and Grading Permits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, security deposits, and annual revenue impacts associated with Engineering services. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS Based upon discussions with Engineering staff, significant modifications were made to the current fee structure. These modifications include: • Expansion of fees: Fees categories were created or broken out in order to provide greater clarity regarding services provided. For example, in the current fee schedule encroachment permits are combined into a handful of categories, without providing much detail as to what types of encroachments are covered. In the proposed schedule, Encroachments are broken out by type of permit, such as sewer improvements, small cell towers, utility improvements, etc. • Reclassified fees: The Improvement Inspection fee has been rephrased to Public Improvement Permit and Inspection to better reflect the services being provided. • Conversion from deposit-based to flat fee: Engineering’s reviews of planning applications and projects is currently recovered through applicant deposits. Rather than continuing to collect deposits and bill hourly against them, these services are being converted to flat fees. • Removal of fees: Certain fees have been removed from the schedule as they are either no longer provided, or have been incorporated within other fees. Examples of removed fees include: Mapping Inspection Deposits, Per Lot fees for Tentative Maps, After Hours Site Inspections, Subdivision and Parcel Map Plan Checks, Copies of CD / DVD’s, and Grading Inspections. The modifications outlined above will ensure that the Engineering fee schedule accurately reflects the services being provided by staff, and help ensure that costs are captured appropriately. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 38 2 DETAILED RESULTS – FLAT FEES The Engineering Division collects fees for items such as public improvement plan check, public improvement inspection, minor and major subdivision tentative map, and transportation permits among others. The total cost calculated for each Engineering service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service. Table 19: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Engineering – Flat Fees Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit ENCROACHMENT Sewer Improvements Sewer Lateral Video Review $75 $96 ($21) Sewer Lateral Certificate $78 $63 $15 Sewer Lateral Plan Review and Permit $325 $382 ($57) Minor Frontage Improvements MFI Plan Review $325 $315 $10 Small Cell Towers Cell Phone Tower Review (City owned pole) $325 $2,045 ($1,720) Cell Phone Tower Review (non-City pole) $325 $503 ($178) Utility Improvements Utility / Outside Service Connection Review $325 $283 $42 Utility Access and TCP Only Review $325 $220 $105 Dig Once Dig Once Advertisement $325 $503 ($178) Potholing Potholing Permit $325 $670 ($345) Revocable Encroachment Permits Revocable Encroachment Plan Review $325 $283 $42 Revocable Encroachment & Maintenance Agreement $325 $709 ($384) Revocable Encroachment Annual Renewal Fee $325 $189 $136 Miscellaneous No Parking Signs $3 $5 ($2) Sidewalk Closure for Maintenance or Construction - per day of sidewalk closure $152 $96 $56 Public Improvement Plan Check (Cost of ROW Improvements) Up to $49,999 $609.00 $1,726.92 ($1,117.92) $50,000 $912.00 $1,726.92 ($814.92) each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $31.05 $726.71 ($695.66) $100,000 $1,216.00 $5,360.49 ($4,144.49) each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $138.00 $321.86 ($183.86) $250,000 $4,561.00 $10,188.40 ($5,627.40) each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $62.10 $279.18 ($217.08) $500,000 $6,082.00 $17,167.89 ($11,085.89) each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $120.00 $130.78 ($10.78) $1,000,000+ $12,163.00 $23,706.94 ($11,543.94) Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 39 Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit each additional $100,000 or fraction thereof $12.00 $364.22 ($352.22) 4th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisions $152 $1,084 ($932.22) Public Improvement Permit & Inspection (Cost of ROW Improvements) Up to $49,999 $456.00 $575.69 ($119.69) $50,000 $456.00 $575.69 ($119.69) each additional $5,000 or fraction thereof $20.70 $326.22 ($305.52) $100,000 $684.00 $3,837.90 ($3,153.90) each additional $5,000 or fraction thereof $5.20 $127.93 ($122.73) $250,000 $912.00 $7,675.81 ($6,763.81) each additional $5,000 or fraction thereof $10.35 $76.76 ($66.41) $500,000+ $1,520.00 $11,513.71 ($9,993.71) each additional $25,000 or fraction thereof $3.11 $191.90 ($188.79) Additional Inspections $152 $192 ($40) Other Fees Work without a permit (after the fact permit) - Fee + Plan Check Fee 2x Permit Fee Engineering Staff Construction Coordination Committee $152 $173 ($21) MAPPING Map Extensions $325 $912 ($587) Final / Parcel Map Review and Processing $325 $5,270 ($4,945) Property Merger / Notice $325 $2,398 ($2,073) Lot Line Adjustment / Certificate of Compliance $325 $2,289 ($1,964) Lot Conformance / Certificate of Compliance $325 $1,819 ($1,494) Grant of Easement / Easement Abandonment Request $3,802 $2,982 $820 Subsequent Engineering Mapping Reviews $456 $661 ($205) Engineering Agreements $1,085 $3,297 ($2,212) Outside Sewer Service Agreement $1,085 $5,472 ($4,387) Benchmark Maintenance Fee $325 $912 ($587) Subdivision Tentative Map Minor Tentative Map $152 $2,706 ($2,554) Major Tentative Map $325 $3,948 ($3,623) Each Additional Lot Over 5 $26 $55 ($29) TRANSPORTATION3 Transportation - Single trip, or a modification of an original permit $16 $31 ($15) Transportation - Annual or repetitive permit $90 $94 ($4) GRADING Hauling Permit Hauling Permit Fee $190 $223 ($33) Grading Plan Check and Permit 51 to 9,999 Cubic Yards $1,216.00 $3,598.91 ($2,382.91) 10,000 $1,520.00 $3,598.91 ($2,078.91) each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $178.28 $495.49 ($317.21) 50,000 $2,689.12 $5,580.86 ($2,891.74) each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $178.28 $220.22 ($41.94) 100,000 $2,205.00 $6,681.94 ($4,476.94) 3 Transportation fees are set by the state and cannot be charged above the current fee of $16 and $90 respectively. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 40 Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $114.00 $330.32 ($216.32) 4th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisions $304 $881 ($577) Erosion Control Compliance Base $150 $192 ($42) Per 250 cubic yards (round to the nearest 250) $15 $16 ($1) MISCELLANEOUS Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours $228 $227 $1 Re-inspection Assessed Under Provisions of Section 305(h) $152 $192 ($40) Inspections for which a fee is not specifically indicated $152 $192 ($40) Permit reinstatement fee $76 $63 $13 Research for Non-Permit Application Inquires $0 $63 ($63) Engineering Staff Time for Services not Specifically Indicated $0 $220 ($220) PLANNING SUPPORT Engineering Staffing TAGs $152 $173 N/A Engineering Design and Conditions Review Single Family Res / new or additions (1-3 units) $5,000 $661 N/A Multi-Family Res / new or modifications (4 or more units) $5,000 $1,762 N/A Commercial / Industrial $5,000 $2,202 N/A Projects requiring City Council Approval $5,000 $2,863 N/A 3rd and subsequent resubmittals $5,000 $551 N/A BUILDING SUPPORT Engineering Site Review (Cost of Site Improvements) Up to $49,999 $304.00 $786.52 ($482.52) $50,000 $912.00 $786.52 $125.48 each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $182.00 $528.52 ($346.52) $100,000 $1,824.00 $3,429.12 ($1,605.12) each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $111.00 $176.17 ($65.17) $250,000 $3,496.00 $6,071.72 ($2,575.72) each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $109.00 $167.36 ($58.36) $500,000 $6,232.00 $10,255.84 ($4,023.84) each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $55.00 $105.70 ($50.70) $1,000,000+ $8,968.00 $15,541.04 ($6,573.04) each additional $100,000 or fraction thereof $27.00 $330.32 ($303.32) 4th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisions $1,100 $881 $219 Most of Engineering fees show an under-recovery. The current subsidies range from a low of $4 for a Transportation permit to a high of $11,544 for a Public Improvement Plan Check valued above $1,000,000. Over-recoveries range from a low of $1 for Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours to a high of $820 for Grant of Easement / Easement Abandonment Requests. Over-recoveries are due to the revision of time estimates and the reclassifying of fees and services. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 41 The fees regarding transportation are showing an under-recovery; however, these fees are set by the state and cannot be charged above the current fee amounts of $16 for a single trip and $90 for an annual trip. 3 SECURITY DEPOSITS The Engineering Division collects security deposits on specific processes to mitigate the impact on City infrastructure, relating to items such as sewer lateral, utility trenching, and pothole projects. The following table details the title / name and the current security deposit. Table 20: Total Security Deposits per Unit – Engineering – Security Deposits Fee Name Current Security Deposit ENCROACHMENT Dig Once Dig Once Policy Administration $10,000 Permit Work Deposit Sewer Lateral Deposit $1,000 Minor Frontage Improvements $2,000 Utility Trenching $40 per ft (minimum $2,000) Pothole Projects $2,000 + $1,000 for each add pothole All other ROW improvement projects $5,000 GRADING Hauling Permit Hauling Permit Deposit $2,000 (refundable) Grading Permit Grading Permit Deposit $50,000 The security deposits noted in the table above are collected by the Engineering division to ensure that applicants work in the right-of-way does not seriously degrade current roads, sidewalks, gutters, etc. These amounts are returned to the applicant upon confirmation from Engineering that work in the right-of-way meets city standards. 4 ANNUAL RESULTS In order to understand how the per unit results presented in the previous sections could impact Engineering’s revenue on an annual basis, workload volume for FY18/19 was collected. The project team then compared annual revenue based on current fees to projected revenue based on the full cost of providing services. This analysis shows that Engineering has an annual subsidy of approximately $311,000. The following table shows the annual workload volume for FY18/19, projected revenue at current fee, projected annual cost, and the associated annual surplus / deficit. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 42 Table 21: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis - Engineering Fee Name Recoverable Volume Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Encroachment Permits 3,055 $430,945 $808,051 ($377,106) Mapping Fees 83 $43,670 $161,564 ($117,894) Transportation Fees 461 $7,968 $15,010 ($7,042) Grading Fees 197 $41,616 $108,385 ($66,769) Miscellaneous Fees 40 $380 $5,663 ($5,283) Planning Support 211 $948,344 $334,242 $614,102 Building Support 792 $306,362 $657,791 ($351,429) TOTAL $1,779,285 $2,090,706 ($311,421) The Engineering division shows annual subsidies in all of the major categories, with the exception of Planning Support. The largest subsidies relate to Encroachment Permits and Building Support. The Engineering division processed roughly 3,000 Encroachment Permits in FY18/19, which combined with an average subsidy of $1,500 across all subcategories results in the $377,000 deficit. Comparatively, the Division only reviewed around 800 building permits, however, the average deficit was $2,500, leading to a subsidy of $351,000. The large surplus shown for planning support is a result of the transition from deposit based fees to flat fees. The revenue at current fee is based on the full deposit amount, while the annual cost is based on the actual time spent to complete the reviews. Overall, the Engineering Division is recovering approximately 85% of its fee related costs. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 43 11. Development Services Surcharges There are two typical surcharges assessed as part of the development review process – General Plan Maintenance and Technology (Database Maintenance) fee. The City of South San Francisco currently charges both of these fees as part of the building phase for General Plan, and for all development-related fees as it relates to the Technology fee. The following subsections discuss the General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology Fee calculated through this study. 1 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE The City of South San Francisco currently assesses a General Plan Maintenance Fee as part of its building permit process. The fee is meant to account for updates to the general plan, zoning ordinance, specific plans, transit action plans, housing elements, and other long-range planning activities that are part of the larger General Plan. This is a fairly typical fee charged by many jurisdictions and it is generally calculated as either a percentage of the building permit fee or percentage of the building / project valuation at the time of permit submittal and calculation. The City of South San Francisco currently charges this fee as a percentage of the building project valuation at the time of the building permit submittal. The concept behind charging it during the building permit phase, is that any development project, which gets to that phase, makes enough of an impact in the jurisdiction to require the potential for the need for an update to the Zoning Code or the General Plan. The project team worked with staff in the Planning Division to estimate the annual percentage of time spent by staff as it relates to long-range planning efforts. In addition to internal staff cost there are contracted costs associated with updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code. The following table shows by cost component the total cost associated with each type of cost factor, the life of the cost factor, and the resulting annual cost: Table 22: General Plan Maintenance Fee Cost Components Cost Category % of Time Cost Life (Yrs) Total Annual Cost Chief Planner 40% $146,289 1 $146,289 Principal Planner 60% $201,059 1 $201,059 ECD Director 10% $43,997 1 $43,997 ECD Deputy Director 20% $34,285 1 $34,285 Subtotal Staffing Costs $425,631 General Plan Update $2,660,299 10 $266,030 TOTAL GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE ANNUAL COST $691,661 The total annual costs associated with updating the General Plan are approximately $692,000; of which staff costs represents $426,000. It is important to note that the staff Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 44 costs in the table are representative of fully burdened hourly rates and billable time. The General Plan Update cost is based upon the City’s most recent contract to update its General Plan (2019) and these comprehensive updates are typically completed on a 10 year lifecycle. In order to assess this fee as a percentage of the building permit valuation, the project team took the annual cost associated with general plan upkeep and divided it by the total building permit valuation for FY18-19. The following table shows this calculation: Table 23: General Plan Maintenance Fee Calculation Category Amount Total General Plan Annual Maintenance Cost $691,661 FY18-19 Building Project Valuation4 $604,456,027 General Plan Maintenance Fee - % of Permit Valuation 0.11% As the table indicates, the calculated General Plan Maintenance Fee is 0.11% of the Building Permit Valuation. The City’s current fee is 0.16% of the Building Permit Valuation. Therefore, the full cost fee would result in reducing the city’s current fee from 0.16% to 0.11%. As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of the General Plan Maintenance Fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis: Table 24: General Plan Maintenance Fee – Comparative Survey Jurisdiction Fee Amount Daly City 0.005% of Valuation Millbrae 0.39% of Valuation Mountain View 0.26% of Valuation Palo Alto 0.109% of Valuation Redwood City 0.20% of Valuation San Bruno 10% of Building Permit Fee San Mateo 0.40% of Valuation The majority of the jurisdictions charge the General Plan Fee as a percentage of the Building Permit Valuation similar to the City of South San Francisco. The City’s full cost calculated at 0.11% of Permit Valuation is in line with Palo Alto and higher than Daly City. It is lower than some of the other surrounding larger jurisdictions such as Mountain View, San Mateo, and Redwood City. 4 The project valuation utilized for building permits was adjusted to only reflect valuation associated with new and remodel projects, as standalone permits would not be charged this fee, and additionally, any outliers were taken out as they were not reflective of typical valuation trends for the jurisdiction. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 45 The City already follows best management practices by collecting and accounting for these funds separate from the General Fund. However, currently, these funds are stored in a fund that includes developer deposits, the technology fee, and the General Plan maintenance fee. The City should separate out the three categories of revenues within the fund and create separate expense divisions associated with each of those areas to mitigate any potential issues with comingling of funds. Therefore, as revenue is generated in this fund and subaccount for General Plan, that is where any staff costs and contracted costs should be incurred. 2 TECHNOLOGY (DATABASE MAINTENANCE) SURCHARGE FEE The City currently collects a database maintenance fee, which is a flat rate of $27 per permit. In discussions with staff and based upon comparison of other jurisdictions it was determined that this fee should be renamed as the Technology Surcharge Fee. The nomenclature of technology fee allows the City to more accurately convey the intent behind the fee, which is to support the costs associated with the City’s permitting system (TRAKiT), and the staff time for managing those permit systems; as well as to bring the fee name in line with standardized practices. The following table shows by cost category, the total cost, the life for the cost, and the resulting annual cost: Table 25: Technology Surcharge Fee Cost Components Cost Category % of Time Cost Life (Yrs) Total Annual Cost IT Director 15% $63,613 1 $63,613 IT Technician 5% $14,432 1 $14,432 Subtotal Staffing Costs $78,045 TRAKiT Maintenance $60,000 1 $60,000 TRAKiT Upgrade $149,000 5 $29,800 TRAKiT Replacement $2,000,000 10 $200,000 Subtotal TRAKiT Costs $289,800 TOTAL TECHNOLOGY ANNUAL COST $367,845 While the City currently charges a flat rate for each permit, it was determined that this was not proportional, as larger projects can generate more of a burden on the system (more storage space for plans, more data input in the office and in the field, etc.). Therefore, through this study, the project team worked with staff to reevaluate the Technology Surcharge as a percentage of the permit fee paid. In this revised nexus, the larger the permit fee, the greater the impact on TRAKiT. Therefore, the project team took the total Technology Annual Cost and divided it by the permitting revenue associated with Building, Fire, Planning, and Engineering services. The following table shows this calculation: Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 46 Table 26: Technology Fee Calculation Category Amount Total Technology Annual Cost $367,845 FY18-19 Permit Revenue5 $12,405,830 Technology Fee - % of Permit 3% Based upon this revised calculation, the City’s technology fee would be 3% of the permit fee. Therefore, if a permit fee was $100, the technology fee collected would be $3; whereas if a permit fee was $1,000; the technology fee collected would be $30. This type of structure, enables the technology fee to be more proportionately distributed based upon the projects and their impact upon the system. As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of the Technology Fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis: Table 27: Technology Fee – Comparative Survey Jurisdiction Fee Amount Daly City 2% of Permit Fee Millbrae 7% of Permit Fee Mountain View 4% of Permit Fee Redwood City 5% of Permit Fee San Bruno 9% of Permit Fee San Mateo 0.10% of Project Valuation The majority of the jurisdictions charge the Technology Fee as a percentage of the permit fee, as has been proposed for the City of South San Francisco. The calculated full cost for the City at 3% of the permit fee is higher than Daly City and only slightly lower than Mountain View (4%). The City already collects the Technology Fee in a separate fund; however, this fund is also the same fund in which developer deposits and the General Plan Maintenance fee is also collected. While there are separate revenue codes in the fund, there are not separate expense codes, and a separate expense division should be created to ensure that the revenue collected for TRAKiT is only utilized to fund the permitting related needs for the City (staffing and contracted). 3 BUILDING TRAINING SURCHARGE The State of California requires that Building Inspectors receive mandatory training and certification to ensure that they are able to accurately implement the California Building 5 The permit revenue includes Fire Prevention, Planning, Engineering, and Building Permit and Plan Check. Building revenue associated with Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Permits has been discounted in order to account for inflated revenues. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 47 Code. The cost of this certification and annual updates on training can vary from year to year depending upon the cycle of training and costs. Therefore, in order to calculate the annual training costs associated with Building staff training, the project team collected information regarding training costs for the past three years. The following table shows the annual training expenses for the past three fiscal years for the Building Division and the resulting three year average annual cost: Table 28: Annual Building Training Costs FY Training Expenses FY17-18 $25,247 FY18-19 $7,788 FY19-20 $7,670 3 year average $13,568 As the table indicates on average the annual training costs associated with Building staff are approximately $13,568. The costs associated with this building training surcharge are stored in a separate fund, similar to the General Plan and Technology Surcharge, which allows to ensure that the funds collected can only be used for inspector certification and training. The current fee for building training is set up as a per permit fee, meaning that for every building permit fee issued, this fee is collected. The project team utilized the three-year average and divided it by the total number of building permits issued in FY18-19 to calculate the total training surcharge per permit: Table 29: Building Training Surcharge Fee Category Amount 3 year average $13,568 FY18-19 # of Building Permits 1,830 Training Surcharge Per Permit $7 As the table indicates the training surcharge per building permit is calculated at approximately $7 per permit. The City currently charges a fee of $8 per permit, based upon the updated calculation, as the number of permits issued have increased, this fee can be reduced from $8 to $7 per permit. The City should continue to collect this fee in a separate fund so that it can be utilized for the purpose of ensuring that all building inspectors employed by the City are appropriately trained and certified by the state. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 48 12. Water Quality Control The Water Quality Control Division is responsible for administering environmental compliance programs mandated by the State of California, including: Pretreatment, Pollution Prevention, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention. Fees examined in this study relate to Discharge Permits and Renewals, Wastewater Analysis, and Stormwater Inspections. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS When reviewing the Water Quality Control fee structure, only a few minor modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule, which include: • Rephrased Fees: Fees were renamed to clarify the service provided and when the permit was applicable. For example, Waste Management Plan Review has been reworded to Water Quality Control Plan Review. • Addition of Fees: The addition of fees is to account for services that are currently provided by the City but not previously charged. A Stormwater Facility Inspection Fee was added to the fee schedule. • Expansion of fees: Fees are broken out in order to provide clarity and depth of services provided within the fee schedule. For example, previously Permit and Renewals only had two generic categories: Significant Industrial Users and All Other Required Businesses. These were broken out into the following categories: Food Facility Discharge Permit, SIU Waste Water Discharge Permit, General / Groundwater Discharge Permit, and Waste / Septage Hauler Discharge Permit. The above modifications better express the services provided by the Water Quality Control Division, and when each permit is applicable. 2 DETAILED RESULTS The Water Quality Control Division collects fees for items such as food facility discharge permits, waste discharge permits, water quality control plan reviews, and stormwater facility inspections. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 49 Table 30: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Water Quality Control Division Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit Permits and Renewals: (valid for 3-year time intervals) Food Facility Discharge Permit $152 $1,976 ($1,824) SIU Wastewater Discharge Permit $609 $2,440 ($1,831) General / Groundwater Discharge Permit $152 $515 ($363) Waste / Septage Hauler Discharge Permit $152 $605 ($453) Inspections and Reviews Water Quality Compliance Review $152 $181 ($29) Inspections - Outside of Normal Pretreatment Activities $152 $193 ($41) Inspections - Outside of Normal Business Hours $152 $193 ($41) Special Monitoring Activities for Enforcement and Surveillance $152 $193 ($41) Special Sampling / Equipment Use $152 $193 ($41) Water Quality Control Plan Review $163 $181 ($18) Stormwater Facility Inspection $580 Water Quality Review $152 $189 ($37) Wastewater Lab Testing / Analysis BOD Actual Cost COD Actual Cost TSS Actual Cost Oil & Grease Actual Cost Metals (except Hg) Actual Cost Hg Actual Cost pH Actual Cost Bioassay Actual Cost CN Actual Cost PAH Actual Cost Phenol Actual Cost Ammonia Actual Cost Conductivity Actual Cost Oxygen Uptake Rate Actual Cost Others Actual Cost Administrative Code Enforcement Failure to Comply with Violation Notice $351 $351 $0 All of the flat fees reviewed for Water Quality Control show an under-recovery. The current subsidies range from a low of $18 for Water Quality Control Plan Review to a high of $1,831 for SIU Waste Water Discharge Permit. The under-recoveries in the permits and renewals section are due to the expansion of fee categories, resulting in more accurate time estimates associated with providing permit services. The Failure to Comply with Violation Notice is a penalty and is set by the City to encourage residents to comply with Code Enforcement. As this is not a time based activity, it was not reviewed through this study. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 50 3 ANNUAL RESULTS In order to understand how the per unit results presented in the previous sections could impact Water Quality Control’s revenue on an annual basis, workload volume for FY18/19 was collected. The project team then compared annual revenue based on current fees to projected revenue based on the full cost of providing services. This analysis shows that Water Quality Control has an annual subsidy of approximately $389,000. The following table shows the annual workload volume for FY18/19, projected revenue at current fee, projected annual cost, and the associated annual surplus / deficit. Table 31: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis – Water Quality Control Fee Name Recoverable Volume Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Permits and Renewals 157 $26,149 $295,091 ($268,942) Inspections and Reviews 402 $32,926 $152,517 ($119,591) TOTAL $59,075 $447,608 ($388,533) Nearly two-thirds of the identified subsidy relates to Permits and Renewals. The primary source of this deficit relates to Food Facility Discharge Permits, of which the Division processed approximately 140, and show a per unit subsidy of $1,800 each. As noted in the previous section, Food Facility Discharge Permits are an expanded category, and will allow the City to better recover costs. The primary source of the Inspections and Reviews deficit is related to Stormwater Facility Inspections, which is a new fee being proposed by the Division. There were approximately 200 of these inspections conducted in FY18/19, for which no fee was charged. Overall, the Water Quality Control Division is recovering approximately 13% of its fee related costs. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 51 13. Police The Police Department is responsible for managing safety within the City, which includes monitoring and reducing crime, enforcing laws, and providing community education. The fees included in this analysis are in relation to fingerprinting services, vehicle abatement, reports, personnel services, vehicle release, firearm storage, and clearance letters provided by the Police Department. The following subsections outline the modifications, detailed results, and annual results related to Police fee-related services. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS Based upon a review of the current fee structure with Police staff, minor modifications were made to the current fee schedule, including: • Removal of fees: Fees were removed from the current fee schedule to provide a more accurate list of services provided by the Police Department. For example, Plan Check and Site Inspection fees were removed from the current fee schedule as these services are provided as part of the building permit process, and have been accounted for through those processes. • Rephrased fees: Fees were renamed to provide clarity to residents regarding the services associated with each permit or fee. Previously the fingerprints fee was labeled All Individuals (City Employees excluded) and is now labeled as Fingerprint Cards (All Individuals, City Employees excluded). • Condensing fees: Fees were condensed from multiple subsections into singular categories, making the modified fee schedule more concise. For example, previously Video Tape, DVD Video, Cassette Tape, and CD – Audio were broken out into separate fees, however they are now grouped together into one fee - Media. The modifications outlined above more accurately represent the services being provided by the Police Department. 2 DETAILED RESULTS The Police Department charges fees for service including items such as fingerprint cards, single firearm storage, and driver permits for cab companies. The total cost calculated for each Police service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 52 Table 32: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Police Services Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit FINGERPRINTING Fingerprint Cards (All individuals, City Employees excluded) – DOJ or FBI fees may be applicable $58 $42 $16 Live Scan Fingerprinting – DOJ or FBI fees may be applicable $75 $79 ($4) PERMITS Alarm Registration (Commercial) New/Renewal $27 $34 ($7) Bingo Initial Permit (Refundable if denied) $58 $205 ($147) Annual Renewal $539 $205 $334 Card room I.D. Card: Initial Operator Permit $1,803 $615 $1,188 Initial Employee Permit $359 $205 $154 Annual Renewal (for operator & employee permit) $90 $205 ($115) Replacement $90 $102 ($12) Cab Company: Driver Permit $58 $243 ($185) Vehicle for Hire: Initial Certificate of Convenience and Necessity $7,223 $2,050 $5,173 Certificate of Renewal $180 $205 ($25) Special Event Permit For Profit $264 $270 ($6) Non-Profit Group / Charity Event $185 $270 ($85) Junk Collector Junk Collector $90 $63 $27 Massage Establishment or Bath House: Initial Permit $1,803 $410 $1,393 Annual Renewal $180 $205 ($25) Pawnbroker/Secondhand Goods Background Investigation: Dealer $1,803 $615 $1,188 Employee $359 $205 $154 Fortune Telling Fortune Telling $1,803 $615 $1,188 Tow Vehicle Companies: Company Permit $180 $138 $42 Driver Permit $180 $107 $73 Renewal: Tow Service Franchise Fee $53 $142 ($89) Replacement of Lost, Stolen, or Mutilated Permits $42 $142 ($100) Reissued Permits $42 $142 ($100) MISCELLANEOUS FEES Police Records Media - Non-Redacted (Video Tape, DVD Video, Cassette Tape, CD - Audio) $53 $67 ($14) Media - Redacted (In Car / Bodycam Video - DVD) $106 $247 ($141) Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 53 Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit Police Reports $0.25 $0.25 $0.00 Photographs - Digital Photographs on Disks $58 $42 $16 Transcripts $0.25 $0.25 $0.00 Firearm / Ammunition Storage Single Firearm Administration $359 $364 ($5) Each Additional Weapon Administration $359 $364 ($5) Ammunition Storage Administration $143 $130 $13 Special Personnel Services Staff Police Officer $116 $192 ($76) Discounted Rate for SSFUSD $95 $192 ($97) Other Miscellaneous Fees Clearance Letter $10 $31 ($21) Vehicle Abatement $359 $254 $105 Towed Vehicle Release, Negligent Operator $180 $126 $54 Emergency Response to Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Accidents Actual Cost Incident Response (includes Accident, Hazmat, DUI or other incident) Actual Cost False Alarm Fines False Alarm Fine Appeal $58 $68 ($10) Identified under-recoveries range from a low of $5 for Single Firearm Administration storage to a high of $185 for a Driver Permit for a Cab Company. Over-recoveries range from a low of $12 for Live Scan Fingerprinting to a high of $5,173 for a Vehicle for Hire Permit. The over-recovery shown for the Vehicle for Hire Permit is due to process changes and efficiencies that were implemented over the last few years. 3 ANNUAL RESULTS The Police Department does not collect workload data on a per unit basis, and therefore annual volume was not available in order to conduct a revenue analysis. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 54 14. Library The Library is responsible for managing and directing services such as book rentals, online learning resources, streaming services, audio book services, and printing services. Fees included in this analysis are in relation to damaged and missing materials, reservation fees, and miscellaneous fees such as computer printouts and postcards. The following subsections outline the modifications, detailed results, and annual results of for Library fees. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS Based upon discussions with staff the current fee schedule needed only minimal modifications, which included consolidating and adding fees. The following points outline the changes made: • Combination of fees: Both the Books and Equipment fee were charged based on actual cost. In order to simplify the schedule, these were combined into a singular fee category. • New fees: Fees were added to the proposed schedule to capture services that were being offered but not currently charged for. Fees were added for USB and Micro SD Cards. These minor modifications help streamline the Library’s fee schedule, and better reflect the services provided, and the associated fees for service. 2 DETAILED RESULTS The fees charged by the Library Department include items such as black and white computer printouts, damaged DVD cases, and overdue books among others. The total cost calculated for each Library service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service. Table 33: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Library Services Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit DAMAGED AND MISSING MATERIALS AV Materials (contents or item damage) Actual Cost Missing Book, DVD, etc. from Set Actual Cost Missing CD - from Audio Book Vendors that offer Replacement Prorated Cost of Set Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 55 Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit Books & Equipment Actual Cost Lost, Replacement Charges – Material Charges CD/DVD Cases $2 $6 ($4) Magazines Actual Cost Lost, Replacement Charges - Processing Fee (Peninsula Library Automated Network Policy) Applies to all Materials: Catalogued Materials $5 $7 ($2) Generic Materials $2 $3 ($1) Fines for Overdue Materials Adult Materials, Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs etc. (Only affects adult borrowers) $0.25 $0.25 $0 Children's Materials - Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs, etc. (Only affects adult borrowers) $0.15 $0.15 $0 Past Due Patron Accounts Referred to a Collection Agency $10 $13 ($3) RESERVE: OUT OF COUNTY RESERVE / INTER-LIBRARY LOAN SSF residents $3 $39 ($36) Non-residents $5 $39 ($34) MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES PayPal Convenience Fee $0.50 $0.50 $0 USB Drives Actual Cost Micro SD Cards Actual Cost Field Trip Fee Actual Cost Computer Printouts Black & White $0.15 $0.15 $0 Color $0.50 $0.50 $0 History Book - SSF $5 $5 $0 History Room Photographs - Digital Copies Copy of CD/DVD/USB $3 History Room Photographs Print Copies Actual Cost Postcards - SSF, 3.5" x 5" Black & White $0.50 $0.50 $0 Color $1 $1 $0 Postcard, ID Set by USPS Other Copies Microfilm Copies $0.25 $0.25 $0 Photocopy $0.20 $0.25 ($0.05) All Library fees are currently breaking even or showing an under-recovery. The largest deficit is $36, and relates to the resident’s Inter-Library Loan. The Inter-Library Loan is set by Peninsula Libraries, and cannot be adjusted. 3 ANNUAL RESULTS The Library does not track workload metrics for each line item within their fee schedule, as most are minimal dollar amounts. Therefore, an annual revenue analysis was not conducted. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 56 15. Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation Department provides opportunities to residents and visitors for physical, cultural and social wellbeing; protects and enhances the physical environment; and ensures the effective and efficient use of public facilities and open spaces. The Department is comprised of three divisions: • Administration: Provides leadership, resource development, and administrative support to Parks and Recreation. • Recreation: Oversees recreation opportunities relating to Aquatics, Sports & Athletics, Rentals / Picnics, Classes / Events, Childcare, and Senior Centers. • Parks: Maintains and rehabilitates the city’s many parks and open spaces, community centers, neighborhood park buildings, playgrounds, and athletic fields. The majority of the programs and services offered by the City are dependent upon the preferences of the community, and can change from season to season. Due to the number and variety of programs and classes offered, as well as the use of contract service providers, this study primarily looked at determining programmatic cost recovery, and only conducted a fee analysis for services associated with rentals, special events, and tree permits. 1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS The Parks and Recreation department issues seasonal activity guides which outline the programs, classes, and services being offered for each season. As noted above, the project team did not review the programs and classes being offered, and therefore, no discussions relating to modifications were had. The fees associated with picnic rentals, facility rentals, special events, and tree permits are already streamlined, and as such, no recommendations were made for modifications. 2 DETAILED RESULTS As aforementioned, this study only evaluated detailed results for picnic rentals, facility rentals, special events, and tree permits. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs, direct material costs (where applicable), Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following subsections look at the detailed results for picnic and facility rentals, special events, and miscellaneous services. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 57 1 Picnic Rentals The City currently has picnic areas available for rentals at Orange Park, Alta Loma, Avalon Park, Buri Buri Park, Sellick Park, and Westborough Park. All picnic rentals must pay an application fee. The following table looks at the current application fee being charged, the full cost, and surplus / deficit associated with application processing. Table 34: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Picnic Rental Application Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit Application Processing $36 $52 ($16) The Parks and Recreation department currently charges $36 to process a picnic rental application. Through this study the full cost associated with staff time was calculated to be $52. Picnic areas can be rented either hourly or per day, depending on the park and space location. Fees charged vary depending on if the renter is a resident or non-resident. The following table outlines the full cost calculated for picnic rentals. Table 35: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Picnic Rentals Fee Title Unit Total Cost Picnic Areas Application Processing Per Application $52 Picnic Areas - Orange Park Extended Hours Per hour $43 Eucalyptus Shelter (15 Tables- 10am-6pm) Per Day $164 Area #2 (2 tables) - Residential Per Day $55 Area #3 (3 tables) Per Day $81 Area #4 (4 tables) Per Day $141 Area #5 (5 tables) Per Day $176 Picnic Areas - Alta Loma Area #1 (6 tables) Per Day $210 Area #2 (2 tables) Per Day $55 Area #3 (2 tables) Per Day $55 Picnic Areas - Avalon Park 5 small tables Per Day $176 Picnic Areas - Buri Buri Park I (6 tables) Per Day $210 II (2 tables) Per Day $55 III (3 tables) Per Day $81 IV (3 tables) Per Day $81 Picnic Areas - Sellick Park 7 tables, includes Campfire area Per Day $244 Picnic Areas - Westborough Park Extended Hours Per Hour $43 Additional Gas Grill Each $70 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 58 Fee Title Unit Total Cost Sheltered Area (18 tables) Per Day $623 Area 2 (5 tables) Per Day $176 Combined Sheltered Area & Area 2 (23 tables) Per Day $794 The above amounts include costs associated with picnic facility oversite, site clean-up, and onsite supervision, but do not account for market rental rates of space. As noted earlier in this report, the City can choose to set their resident and non-resident fees in accordance with City policy and recovery guidelines. 2 Facility Rentals The City currently has five buildings which include space that can be rented by the public for meetings, parties, or events: Magnolia Center, Municipal Services Building, Westborough Park Building, Joseph A. Fernekes Building, and the Terrabay Recreation Center. Similar to picnic rentals, all facility rentals must pay an application fee. The following table looks at the current application fee being charged, the full cost, and surplus / deficit associated with application processing. Table 36: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Facility Rental Application Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit Surplus / (Deficit) per Unit Application Processing $83 $106 ($23) The Parks and Recreation department currently charges $83 to process a facility rental application, including review of insurance requirements and property rules. Through this study the full cost associated with staff time was calculated to be $106. Along with application processing, all facility rentals require a refundable security deposit to ensure proper use of the space. Each facility rental is rented hourly, with different location and room types, which stipulate varying minimum rental hours. Hourly rental fees depend on the renter’s status as either a resident, non-resident, or non-profit group. The project team worked with Recreation staff to determine the approximate time associated with facilitating room rentals, including room set-up, room clean-up, and any onsite staff required during rentals. The following table outlines the full cost calculated for facility rentals. Table 37: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Facility Rentals Fee Title Unit Total Cost Facility Rentals - Magnolia Center Full Center Per Hour $57 Meeting Room Rental Per Hour $29 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 59 Fee Title Unit Total Cost Facility Rentals - Municipal Services Building Social Hall w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $78 Atrium Kitchen (As add-on to Social Hall only - Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $60 Social Hall (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $78 Atrium/Marie Peterson Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $52 Atrium w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental) Per Hour $52 Marie Peterson Room w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental) Per Hour $9 Marie Peterson Room w/o Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental) Per Hour $9 Betty Weber Room & Butterfly Room (Min. 1 hour rental) Per Hour $29 Community Room w/o Kitchen, No Food (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $29 William M. Belloni Family Room (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $29 Rental Extras: Portable Bar Each $22 Coffee Pot Each $4 Sound System Each $22 Flip Chart with Paper/Markers Each $4 LCD Projector Each $22 Event Day Room Setup Adjustment Each $43 LCD Displays Each $22 Portable Stage Each $86 Projection Screens Each $22 Facility Rentals - Westborough Park Building Multi-Use / Activity Rooms w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Multi-Use Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Activity Room w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Facility Rentals - Joseph A. Fernekes Building Multi Use Activity Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Rental Extras: Outside Gas Grill Each $70 Facility Rentals - Terrabay Recreation Center Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen, Gym and Poppy Room (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen and Poppy Room (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen and Gym (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Iris Room 1 & 2 w/Kitchen (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Gymnasium (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Iris Room 1 and 2 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Poppy Room w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Iris Room 1 with Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Iris Room 1 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Iris Room 2 with Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57 Iris Room 2 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57 The above amounts include costs associated with facility oversite, site clean-up, and onsite supervision, but do not account for market rental rates of space. As noted earlier in this report, the City can choose to set their resident and non-resident fees in accordance with City policy and recovery guidelines. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 60 3 Miscellaneous Services The Parks and Recreation Department offers rentals associated with Community Garden plots and Artist Studio space. The project team worked with Recreation staff to determine the approximate time associated with facilitating these rentals, and specific costs associated with these services such as water and equipment for the garden plots, and access to the artist studio. The following table outlines the full cost calculated for garden plot and artist studio rentals. Table 38: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Garden Plot and Artist Studio Rentals Fee Title Unit Total Cost Community Garden Plot Per Plot $469 Artist Studio Fee Per Sq. Ft. $0.78 As these are market based fees, the City can choose to set their fees in accordance with City policy and recovery guidelines. Parks and Recreation staff facilitate the sale of tickets to special events, as well as provide support to those events via support staff. Parks staff are also responsible for reviewing and issuing tree permits. The total cost calculated for each of these services includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service. Table 39: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Miscellaneous Parks and Recreation Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit (Deficit) per Unit Other Services Special Event & Recital Tickets Each $13 $26 ($14) Special Event Support Staff Per Hour $31 $39 ($8) Tree Fees Protected Tree Permit Each $105 $432 ($327) Wholesale Tree Purchase Per Tree $500 Actual Cost The City is currently under-recovering for both of its special event related services, with ticket support showing a $14 subsidy, and support staff hourly rates showing a subsidy of $8 per hour. The Protected Tree Permit shows a subsidy of $327 per unit. The City’s current flat fee of $500 for purchase of a wholesale tree is being proposed to be converted to actual cost. This conversion will better allow the City recover costs associated with purchases of wholesale trees, as costs could vary depending on the size and type of tree purchased. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 61 3 ANNUAL RESULTS As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the primary focus of the analysis of Parks and Recreation cost of services was at the programmatic level, rather than a line item or fee level. In order to review cost recovery, the project team looked at total revenue and compared it to the direct costs associated with each program, as well as citywide and divisional support. The City only charges fees and collects revenues for services provided by Recreation division programs. The following table outlines the by fee program the FY 18-19 revenue collected, the full cost calculated (direct and indirect) annual surplus / deficit, and cost recovery associated with each Recreation program. Table 40: Annual Results – Recreation Programs Fee Program FY18-19 Revenue Full Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Aquatics Program $387,759 $1,125,009 ($737,250) Sports & Athletics $61,758 $678,030 ($616,272) Rentals/Picnics $593,071 $708,192 ($115,121) Classes/Events $529,529 $949,334 ($419,805) Childcare $2,544,503 $5,440,547 ($2,896,044) Senior Centers $25,259 $950,218 ($924,959) TOTAL $4,141,879 $9,851,330 ($5,709,450) Overall, Parks and Recreation has an annual subsidy of approximately $5,700,000, which reflects 42% cost recovery. The largest source of the Department’s subsidy relates to Childcare, which comprises about half of the overall deficit. If Department and Citywide overhead were excluded from the calculation, Parks and Recreation would have a deficit of $2,700,000, and cost recovery would increase to approximately 60%. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 62 16. Comparative Survey As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of South San Francisco, the Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified ten jurisdictions to be included in the comparative survey: Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Millbrae, Mountain View, Napa, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno, and San Mateo. While this report will provide the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to consider the local “market rates” for services as a means for assessing what types of changes in fee levels their community can bear. However, a comparative survey does not provide adequate information regarding the relationship of a jurisdiction’s cost to its fees. The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated costs for various permits issued or services provided by the City. 1 ECONOMIC FACTORS In order to provide additional context to the comparative survey information, the project team collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population, budget, and workforce size. The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to largest for each of these economic factors: Table 41: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Population Jurisdiction 2019 Population Brisbane 4,693 Millbrae 22,800 Burlingame 30,294 San Bruno 45,000 South San Francisco 67,078 Palo Alto 67,082 Napa 80,277 Mountain View 81,992 Redwood City 85,300 San Mateo 104,000 Daly City 107,864 Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 63 Table 42: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Budget Jurisdiction FY 19 / 20 Budget Brisbane $29,275,017 Millbrae $85,058,105 Burlingame $85,287,568 San Bruno $88,756,413 San Mateo $191,179,012 Daly City $194,245,024 South San Francisco $219,193,431 Napa $251,507,000 Redwood City $290,314,935 Mountain View $523,993,855 Palo Alto $723,837,000 Table 43: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Workforce Size Jurisdiction FY 19 / 20 FTE Brisbane 91.24 Millbrae 94.00 Burlingame 214.27 San Bruno 265.00 Daly City 458.00 Napa 498.00 Redwood City 564.36 South San Francisco 578.29 San Mateo 612.61 Mountain View 629.75 Palo Alto 1,034.85 Based on the data shown in the above tables, the City of South San Francisco is just below the middle in terms of population, and just above the middle when looking at budget and size of workforce when compared to the surveyed jurisdictions. 2 RECENCY FACTOR While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when paralleling South San Francisco’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider are when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive analysis was undertaken. The following tables detail when each surveyed jurisdiction last conducted a fee analysis and when they last updated their fee schedule. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 64 Table 44: Last Fee Study Update Jurisdiction Response Brisbane 20026 Burlingame 2016 Daly City Not within the last 10 years Millbrae 2019 Mountain View 2019 Napa 20117 Palo Alto 2016 Redwood City 2017 San Bruno Not within the last 10 years San Mateo 20188 Table 45: Last Fee Schedule Update Jurisdiction Response Brisbane 2019 Burlingame 2019 Daly City 2013 Millbrae 2019 Mountain View 2019 Napa 2018 Palo Alto 2019 Redwood City 2019 San Bruno 2019 San Mateo 2019 Seven of the ten jurisdictions surveyed have completed fee studies in the last ten years, the majority of which were conducted within the last four years. All surveyed jurisdictions have updated their fees within the last two years, with the exception of Daly City, which has not increased its fees since 2013. It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted fee studies, fees are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The comparative results only show the adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdictions not necessarily the full cost associated with the comparable service. 6 Brisbane conducts internal updates annually for the fee study (one dept a year). 7 Napa conducted a fee study update in 2015 of the Parks & Rec Department only. 8 The last fee study update for San Mateo included development services only. Public Works and other fees have not yet been updated. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 65 3 ADDITIONAL FACTORS Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for service: • Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on the actual cost of providing services. • The same “fee” with the same name may include more or less steps or sub- activities. In addition, jurisdictions provide varying levels of service and have varying levels of costs associated with providing services such as staffing levels, salary levels, indirect overhead costs, etc. In addition to the issues noted, market surveys can also run the risk of creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because each jurisdiction is different, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the information contained in the market comparison of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool, rather than a tool for establishing an acceptable price point for services. 4 COMPARATIVE SURVEY RESULTS As part of this study, the project team conducted a survey of how the City’s current user fees and calculated full cost compare to other similarly sized and regionally located jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related services provided by the City. 1 Film Application The City Manager’s Office currently charges a fee of $573 to review an application to film within the City. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $289. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 66 Of the jurisdictions surveyed, only San Bruno, Napa, Redwood City, and Burlingame charge application fees for filming. As the graph indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee is higher than the surveyed fees, however, its full cost calculated falls in line with the average fee of $221. 2 Zoning Amendment The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $8,625 for processing a Zoning Amendment request. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $15,337. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. As the graph indicates, while the City’s current fee is below the average of the surveyed jurisdictions, its full cost is above the average. It is important to note that some of the surveyed jurisdictions9 charge for this service on a time and materials basis and the 9 The cities of Palo Alto, San Mateo, Daly City, Napa, and Redwood City collect a deposit and charge on a time and material basis. $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost San Bruno Napa Redwood City BurlingameFee AmountFilm Application Fee Average $- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewFee AmountZoning Amendment Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 67 information reflected above is only the initial deposit. Of the surveyed jurisdictions that charge a flat fee, Millbrae charges the most ($20,000) and Brisbane charges the least ($1,725). 3 Zoning Verification Review The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $833 for conducting a Zoning Verification Review. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $899. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are above the average charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($561). South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost fall in line with the fee charged by San Mateo. Palo Alto charges the most at $931. Several jurisdictions10 surveyed charge based upon the fully burdened hourly rate. 4 Variance The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $4,312 for processing Variances. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $9,274. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 10 Palo Alto, San Mateo, Napa, and Brisbane charge a fully burdened hourly rate for Zoning Letters. In order to calculate a comparable fee, the hours utilized to derive South San Francisco’s full cost fee were utilized to calculate the fees for these jurisdictions. $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa BrisbraneFee AmountZoning Verification Review Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 68 South San Francisco’s full cost is above the average fee of $4,360 charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee falls in line with Millbrae, Daly City, and Burlingame’s fees, but the full cost calculated is over double the average fee. The fee charged by Palo Alto is significantly more than other surveyed jurisdictions due to the inclusion of hearing fees. 5 Appeal to City Council The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $1,725 for processing Appeals of decisions made by the Zoning Administrator to the City Council. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $5,231. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno Millbrae Daly City Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountVariance Fee Average $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Brisbrane Redwood CityFee AmountAppeal to City Council Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 69 As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s full cost is above the average fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($1,518). Most jurisdictions surveyed charge a minimal fee for this service. It should be noted, appeals to City Council is a commonly subsidized fee by many jurisdictions. 6 Design Review – Commercial / Industrial The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $2,559 for processing a Design Review application for a commercial or industrial structure. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $3,816. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are below the average fee of $5,308. Due to the wide variation in the type of application review, several surveyed jurisdictions charge this fee as a deposit11. While Palo Alto has the highest fee, they charge the fee as a deposit to recover the full cost of providing the services. 7 Single Family Residential Design Review The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $1,212 for processing a Design Review application for a Single-Family Residential property. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $2,603. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 11 The cities of Palo Alto, San Bruno, San Mateo, Napa, and Redwood City collect a deposit and charge based on time and materials. $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountDesign Review -Commercial / Industrial Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 70 South San Francisco’s current fee is below the average and on the lower end of fees charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. However, its full cost calculated falls in line with the jurisdictional average of $2,620. It is important to note that some of the surveyed jurisdictions12 charge for this service on a time and materials basis and the information reflected above is only the initial deposit. 8 Multi-Family Residential Conditional Use Permit The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $3,461 for processing a Conditional Use Permit application for a multi-family residential property. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $14,324. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 12 The cities of San Bruno, San Mateo, and Napa collect a deposit and charge on a time and material basis. $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewFee AmountNew Single Family Residential Design Review Fee Average $- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Napa Redwood City Mountain ViewFee AmountMulti-Family Residential Conditional Use Permit Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 71 South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost fall below the jurisdictional average of $17,423. Similar to other planning applications, several of the surveyed jurisdictions13 choose to charge a deposit for this service. 9 Residential ADU, 900 Sq. Ft., $141,462 Valuation The Building Division currently charges $4,090 for plan review and inspection of a 900 sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) valued at $141,462. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $4,252. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. As shown in the graph above, South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are higher than the average ($3,309). Daly City, Napa, and Brisbane have the lowest fees surveyed, which are well below the average. Daly City has not increased its fees in over seven years and Napa and Brisbane calculate its fees based off of the project square footage rather than project valuation resulting in lower fees. 10 New Single-Family Residence, 3,350 Sq. Ft., $406,000 Valuation The Building Division currently charges a fee of $7,344 for plan review and inspection of a New 3,350 sq. ft. Single Family Residence valued at $406,000. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $7,612. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 13 The cities of Palo Alto, San Mateo, Millbrae, Napa, and Redwood City collect a deposit and charges on a time and material basis. $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewPermit FeeAdditional Dwelling Unit 900 sqft, $141,462 valuation Plan Check Permit Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 72 South San Francisco’s current fee is just below the average fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($7,481), while the full cost is just above the average. San Mateo has the highest fee, while Brisbane has the lowest fee. 11 New Lab, 280,765 Sq. Ft., $74,000,000 Valuation The Building Division currently charges a fee of $129,264 for plan review and inspection of a New 280,765 sq. ft. Lab valued at $74,000,000. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $375,665. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee is the lowest fee charged among the surveyed jurisdictions and below the average plan check and inspection fee of $466,016. The full cost calculated through this study is also below the average, just above San Mateo. $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewPermit FeeSingle-Family Residence 3,350 sqft, $406,000 valuation Plan Check Permit Average $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewPermit FeeNew Lab 280,765 sqft, $74,000,000 valuation Plan Check Permit Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 73 12 New Office, 15,000 Sq. Ft., $2,041,200 Valuation The Building Division currently charges a fee of $20,193 for plan review and inspection of a New 15,000 sq. ft. Office valued at $2,041,200. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $19,141. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee is the lowest among surveyed jurisdictions. The full cost calculated is below the average fee of $26,439, and just above the fees charged by San Mateo and Redwood City. 13 New Multi-Family, 157,364 Sq. Ft., $41,164,326 Valuation The Building Division currently charges a fee of $81,785 for plan review and inspection of a 157,364 square foot new Multi-Family building valued at $41,164,326. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $280,375. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewPermit FeeNew Lab 280,765 sqft, $74,000,000 valuation Plan Check Permit Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 74 South San Francisco’s current fee is the lowest charged compared to all surveyed jurisdictions. The full cost calculated is just below the average fee of $288,205. Millbrae and Napa have the lowest fees surveyed, and San Bruno, Brisbane, and Burlingame have the highest fees. 14 Commercial Tenant Improvement, 9,073 Sq. Ft., $968,333 Valuation The Building Division currently charges a fee of $15,627 for plan review and inspection of a 9,073 sq. ft. Commercial Tenant Improvement valued at $968,333. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $15,062. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. Both South San Francisco’s current fee and calculated full cost are in line with the jurisdictional average of $15,258. Palo Alto and San Mateo have the highest fees surveyed, while Daly City and Napa have the lowest fees. $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewPermit FeeMulti-Family Housing (172 units) 157,364 sqft, $41,164,326 valuation Plan Check Permit Average $- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewPermit FeeCommercial Tenant Improvement 9,073 sqft, $968,333 valuation Plan Check Permit Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 75 15 Residential Re-roof, $12,000 Valuation The Building Division currently charges a fee of $350 for plan check and inspection of Residential Reroofs. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost of providing this service to be $512. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee is just below the average of $384, while the full cost calculated through this study in on par with Millbrae, and lower than Brisbane. Several jurisdictions14 charge for reroofs based on the valuation of the project, while Brisbane charges per 1,000 square feet15. 16 Water Heater The Building Division currently charges a fee of $125 for permit issuance and inspection of a Water Heater. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for providing this service to be $137. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 14 San Bruno, Daly City, and Burlingame’s fees were calculated using an average valuation of $12,000. 15 Brisbane charges per 1,000 sq. ft., therefore the fee is based on an average of 2,000 sq. ft. reroof. $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewPermit FeeResidential Reroof Permit Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 76 South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are higher than the surveyed jurisdictional average of $83. However, the current fee falls in line with fees charged by Millbrae and Redwood City. Brisbane is the only jurisdiction that does not have a flat fee and charges based on valuation; an average valuation of $1,800 was used to calculated the fee. It should be noted that Water Heater permits are often subsidized by many jurisdictions to encourage the community to obtain the permit before performing work. 17 Fire Service Ambulance ALS Transports The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $2,018 for providing Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport services. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $3,075. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee falls in line with fees charged by Palo Alto and Napa. However, its full cost is higher than the average fee charged by all surveyed jurisdictions. $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Brisbane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewPermit FeeWater Heater Permit Fee Average $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo County (AMR) Napa Mountain ViewFee AmountFire Service Ambulance Transportation ALS Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 77 San Bruno, San Mateo, Millbrae, Daly City, Brisbane, Redwood City, and Burlingame are all under the San Mateo County AMR contract for Ambulance Transportation. 18 Fire Service Ambulance Transportation BLS Emergency The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $2,018 for providing Basic Life Support (BLS) transport services. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $3,075. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s full cost is above the average fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($1,984) and is higher than all other fees charged by surveyed jurisdictions. San Bruno, San Mateo, Millbrae, Daly City, Brisbane, Redwood City, and Burlingame are all under the San Mateo County AMR contract for Ambulance Transportation. 19 Annual Fire Operational Permit – Large Family Daycare The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $351 for the Large Family Daycare Annual Operational Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $22416. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 16 The full cost includes a base square footage fee of up to 5,000 sq. ft. as well as the operation permit fee. $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo County (AMR) Napa Mountain ViewFee AmountFire Service Ambulance Transportation BLS Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 78 South San Francisco’s current fee is well above the average charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($199) and is only comparable to Palo Alto. It’s full cost falls in line with fee charged by Brisbane and Redwood City and is just above the overall average fee. 20 Annual Fire Operational Permit – Repair Garage The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $351 for a Repair Garage Annual Operational Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $337 17. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. The City’s current fee and full cost are above the average fee ($221) charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. Both the current fee and full cost are among the highest for fees charged by surveyed jurisdictions. The only jurisdiction that charges a higher fee for this service is Palo Alto at $393. 17 The full cost includes a base square footage fee of up to 5,000 sq. ft. as well as the operation permit fee. $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountFire Operational Permit -Large Family Daycare Fee Average $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountFire Operational Permit -Large Family Daycare Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 79 21 Annual Multi-Family Housing Inspection 3-10 Units The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $264 for Multi-Family Housing Inspections for locations with 3-10 units. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $192. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. As the graph indicates, the City’s current fee is above the average fee ($214); while its full cost is below the average fee. The full cost falls in line with fees charged by San Mateo and Daly City. 22 Fire Prevention – Temporary Membrane (Tent) The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $351 for review and inspection of a Temporary Membrane (Tent). As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $365. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountFire Multi-Family Housing Inspection 3-10 units Fee Average $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 SSF - Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Brisbrane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewFee AmountFire Prevention -Temporary Membrane (Tent) Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 80 South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are in line with the surveyed jurisdictional average fee of $369. Palo Alto’s fee is almost double the average fee. 23 Residential Fire Sprinkler up to $6,000 The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $703 for plan review and inspection of Residential Fire Sprinklers valued at up to $6,000. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $758. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are higher than the jurisdictional average fee of $565. The City’s full cost falls in line with fees charged by San Mateo and Daly City. 24 Encroachment Permit - $50,000 Engineering Cost Construction Valuation The Engineering Division currently charges a fee of $1,368 for plan review and inspection of an Encroachment Permit whose project cost is valued at $50,000. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $2,290. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane RedwoodCity BurlingameFee AmountResidential Fire Sprinkler up to $6,000 Fee Average $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Brisbane Burlingame Millbrae Mountain View Palo Alto Redwood City San Bruno San MateoFee AmountEnroachment Permit -$50,000 Engineering Cost Construction Valuation Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 81 As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee and calculated full cost are below the average fee of $2,939. The City’s full cost falls in line with fees charged by Millbrae and San Bruno. There is an extreme variation in how encroachment plan review and inspection fees are charged by surveyed jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions18 charge an initial deposit and then bill for additional time and materials spent on the review; while other jurisdictions19 surveyed charge based upon the fully burdened hourly rate. Only Millbrae, Mountain View, and Palo Alto charge a flat fee for this service. 25 Encroachment Permit - $100,000 Engineering Cost Construction Valuation The Engineering Division currently charges a fee of $1,900 for plan review and inspection of an Encroachment Permit whose project cost is valued at $100,000. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $9,176. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s full cost is above the average charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($7,169) but falls in line with fees charged by Millbrae and San Bruno. Some jurisdictions20 charge an initial deposit and then bill for additional time and materials spent on the review; whereas, other jurisdictions21 surveyed charge based upon the fully burdened hourly rate. Only three jurisdictions22 charge a flat fee for this service. 26 Grading Permit of 10,000 Cubic Yards The Engineering Division currently charges a fee of $1,520 for plan review and inspection of Grading Permit of 10,000 cubic yards. As part of this study, the project team calculated 18 Burlingame, Redwood City, and San Mateo collect a deposit and charge based on time and materials. 19 Brisbane and San Bruno charge a fully burdened hourly rate for Encroachment services. In order to calculate a comparable fee, the hours utilized to derive South San Francisco’s full cost fee were utilized to calculate the fees for these jurisdictions. 20 Burlingame, Redwood City, and San Mateo collect a deposit and charge based on time and materials. 21 Brisbane and San Bruno charge a fully burdened hourly rate for Encroachment services. In order to calculate a comparable fee, the hours utilized to derive South San Francisco’s full cost fee were utilized to calculate the fees for these jurisdictions. 22 Millbrae, Mountain View, and Palo Alto charge a flat fee for this service. $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Brisbane Burlingame Millbrae Mountain View Palo Alto Redwood City San Bruno San MateoFee AmountEncroachment Permit -$100,000 Engineering Cost Construction Valuation Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 82 the full cost for this service to be $3,595. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s full cost is below the average charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($7,360) but falls in line with fees charged by Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Bruno. San Bruno23 calculates current fees based upon fully burdened hourly rates, and the time it takes to plan review and inspect these systems. San Mateo’s fee is charged as a deposit. 27 Food Facility Discharge Permit The Water Quality Control Division currently charges a fee of $152 for inspection of a Food Facility Discharge Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $1,999. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 23 Fees for San Bruno were calculated using the same number of hours as the basis for South San Francisco’s full cost fee. $- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Brisbane Burlingame Daly City MountainView Palo Alto San Bruno San MateoFee Amount10,000 Cubic Yards Grading Permit Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 83 As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee is below the average fee of $1,148. South San Francisco’s full cost falls in line with fee charged by Burlingame and is lower than the fee charged by Palo Alto. It is important to note that fees above are not consistent across the jurisdictions because they are accounting for different types24 of discharge permits. 28 SIU Wastewater Discharge Permit The Water Quality Control Division currently charges a fee of $609 for inspection of a SIU Wastewater Discharge Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $2,469. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. While South San Francisco’s current fee is below the average, its full cost is higher than the average fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($1,893). Similar to the Food 24 Palo Alto charges for an Industrial Waste Discharge permit, San Mateo charges for a Class B Waste Discharge permit, Millbrae charges for Septic Discharges, Redwood City’s fee is an initial deposit, and Burlingame is charging for a Moderate Discharge permit. $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Redwood City BurlingameFee AmountFood Facility Discharge Permit Fee Average $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Redwood City BurlingameFee AmountSIU Wastewater Discharge Permit Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 84 Facility Discharge permit, the surveyed jurisdictions charge these fees in a variety of ways25. 29 General/Groundwater Discharge Permit The Water Quality Control Division currently charges a fee of $152 for inspection of a General/Groundwater Discharge Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $521. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. While South San Francisco’s current fee is well below the surveyed jurisdiction’s fees, the full cost is just below the average fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($684). The types of fees being charged vary26 but are all under this General/Groundwater Discharge Permit category. 30 Fingerprinting Cards The Police Department currently charges a fee of $58 for a Fingerprinting Card. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $42. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 25 Palo Alto is charging for an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit, San Mateo is charging for a Class A Waste Discharge permit, Redwood City’s fee is an initial deposit, and Burlingame is charging for a Heavy Discharge permit. Millbrae is charged at a base of $500 plus $50 per employee; we assumed 20 employees in our calculations. 26 Palo Alto charges for an Industrial Waste Discharge permit, San Mateo charges a Class B Waste Discharge permit, Millbrae charges for Groundwater that is more than 1,000 gallons annually, and Redwood City just charges an initial deposit. $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Redwood City BurlingameFee AmountGeneral/Groundwater Discharge Permit Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 85 As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee is the highest compared to the fees charged by surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s full cost calculated is still above the average fee ($29) and many of the surveyed jurisdictions, with the exception of the City of Palo Alto. 31 Cab Company Driver Permit The Police Department currently charges $58 for review and issuance of a Cab Company Driver Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $243. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. As shown above, South San Francisco’s current fee is the lowest compared to the fees charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. In contrast, South San Francisco’s full cost calculated is the highest fee even above the average fee of $147. The full cost fee for the City is slightly higher than the fee charged by Millbrae. $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto Napa Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountFingerprinting Cards Fee Average $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Napa Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountCab Company Driver Permit -New Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 86 32 Massage Establishment The Police Department currently charges $1,803 for review and issuance of a Massage Establishment – New with CAMTC / Practitioner Owner permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $408. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee is the highest compared to the fees charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. The city’s full cost is in line with the average ($329) of the surveyed jurisdictions27. Note that Redwood City does not charge a fee for a massage permit as long as the establishment has a sole owner with a CAMTC Certificate. 33 Vehicle Release The Police Department currently charges $180 for processing a Vehicle Release. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $125. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. 27 Redwood City charges $0 for this permit as long as there is a sole owner with a California Massager Therapy Council (CAMTC) certificate. $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Napa Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountMassage Establishment -New with CAMTC/Practioner Owner Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 87 As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s full cost is in line with the average fee ($125) charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. 34 Clearance Letter The Police Department currently charges $10 for processing a Clearance Letter request. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $31. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee is one of the lowest fees charged by surveyed jurisdictions. It’s full cost while above the average ($20) fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions, is in line with Palo Alto, San Bruno, Napa, and Burlingame. $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 SSF -Current SSF - FullCost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Napa Brisbrane RedwoodCity Burlingame MountainViewFee AmountVehicle Release Vehicle Release Fee Vehicle Release Average $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Napa Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain ViewFee AmountClearance Letter Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 88 35 Affordable Housing Development Agreement The Housing Division does not currently charge a fee for Affordable Housing Development Applications or Agreements. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for the review of an application and processing of an agreement to be $1,138. The following graph shows how the division’s full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions who charge for these services. None of the surveyed jurisdictions provide affordable housing services; therefore, the project team compiled information from surveyed jurisdictions who do provide these services. As the graph above indicates, the full cost for South San Francisco is less than the fees28 charged by all the surveyed jurisdictions that provide the same services. 36 Single Family Refinance or Subordination of Agreement or Loan The Housing Division does not currently charge a fee for Refinancing or a Subordination of Agreement or Loan for a Single-Family Home. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $335. The following graph shows how the division’s full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions who charge for these services. 28 South San Francisco’s full cost includes an additional $541 for an application fee. Santa Clara’s fee also includes an additional $50 for an application fee. $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 SSF - Full Cost Santa Clara Sunnyale San JoseFee AmountAffordable Housing Development Agreement Agreement Average $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 SSF - Full Cost Santa Clara San Mateo Sunnyale San JoseFee AmountRefinance or Subordination of Agreement or Loan -Single Family Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 89 Santa Clara charges the highest fee for this service at $1,060; whereas San Mateo and San Jose charge a similar fee ($250 and $268). Sunnyvale’s fee of $400 is only slightly above South San Francisco’s full cost of $335. 37 Picnic Area The Parks and Recreations Department currently charges a fee of $71 per rental for a small picnic area that holds 20 people or less for up to four hours on a weekend. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $54. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee and calculated full cost are both below the average fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($95). Brisbane and San Bruno charge their fees on a per hour basis while the remaining surveyed jurisdictions charge on a per use or per day basis. 38 Meeting Room Rental The Parks and Recreations Department currently charges a fee of $88 per rental for renting a small meeting room to a non-resident on a weekday for up to two hours without access to a kitchen. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $57. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Brisbane Burlingame Daly City Millbrae Napa Palo Alto Redwood City San Bruno San MateoFee AmountResident Picnic Area Rental for 4 hrs on weekend for <20 people Picnic Fee Picnic Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 90 South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are generally lower than the fees charged by surveyed jurisdictions. 5 SUMMARY Based upon the comparative survey, the City’s full cost is generally higher than current fees charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. However, as aforementioned, it is important to remember to utilize this survey as a secondary decision-making tool; as many jurisdictions might have different cost recovery goals and policies for different types of user fees. $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Brisbane Daly City Millbrae Mountain View Napa Palo Alto Redwood City San BrunoFee AmountNon-Residential Small Meeting Room Rental - Weekday 2 hrs Fee Average Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 91 17. Cost Recovery Considerations The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determining annual update factors, and developing cost recovery policies and procedures. 1 FEE ADJUSTMENTS This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under and over collecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the results of the study and adjust fees in accordance with Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following dot points outline the major options the City has in adjusting its fees. • Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with the full cost of providing the service. • Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately. • Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low cost recovery levels, or which would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to increase fees gradually over a set period of time. The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that currently show an over-recovery are fairly straight forward, the following subsections, provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees. 1 Full Cost Recovery Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant increase associated with full cost recovery. Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often, these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees which are unable to be increased. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 92 The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested, the City is recovering the full cost of its services. 2 Phased Increases Depending on current cost recovery levels some current fees may need to be increased significantly in order to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the type of permit or review, or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching their cost recovery goals. As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing 20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, in order to be in compliance. Assuming this particular service is something the City provides quite often, and affects various members of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost recovery is achieved. Raising fees over a set period of time not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact to applicants, but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases. Continuing with the example laid out above, the City could increase the fee by $150 for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase, and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window for which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed. 2 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general rule of thumb for comprehensive fee analyses is between three and five years. This allows for jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes such as staffing levels and merit increases, as well as process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements. Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 93 (CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further detail on each of these mechanisms. • COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases are not tied to merit or seniority, but rather meant to offset rising costs associated with housing, gas, and other livability factors. Sometimes these factors vary depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally speaking these factors are around two or three percent annually. • CPI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions. The City should review its current options internally (COLA) as well as externally (CPI) to determine which option better reflects the goals of departments and the City. If choosing a CPI factor, the City should outline which particular CPI should be used, including specific region, and adoption date. If choosing an internal factor, again, the City should be sure to specify which factor if multiple exist. 3 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES This study has identified the permit areas where the City is under-collecting the cost associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources. Based on the information provided in this report, at a global or per unit level, the City may not have any issues with using non-fee related revenue to account for the current deficit. Development of cost recovery policies and procedures will serve to ensure that current and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits associated with developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost recovery. 1 Typical Cost Recovery The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery levels. The table on the following page outlines these cost recovery levels by major department. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 94 Table 46: Typical Cost Recovery Levels by Department Department Typical Cost Recovery Building 80 – 100% Planning 50 – 80% Fire 80 – 100% Finance 40% - 70% Police 20 – 40% Recreation 20 – 50% Engineering 80 – 100% Information presented in the table above is based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s experience in analyzing local government’s operations across the United States and in California and reflects typical cost recovery levels observed by local adopting authorities. The following graph depicts how South San Francisco compares to industry cost recovery standards. With the exception of Building and Fire, all departments have cost recovery levels that fall within typical industry standards. 2 Development of Cost Recovery Policies and Procedures The City should review the current cost recovery levels and adopt a formal policy regarding cost recovery. This policy can be general in nature and can apply broadly to the City as a whole, or to each department and division specifically. A department specific cost recovery policy would allow the City to better control the cost recovery associated with different types of services being provided and the community benefit received. 107% 61% 125% 85%85% 42% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%BuildingPlanningFireEngineeringWater QualityParks and RecreationCurrent Cost Recovery vs. Typical Cost Recovery Typical Cost Recovery Current Cost Recovery Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %1. CITY CLERKTranscripts1.01 CC4Folio RateEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost1.02 CC4Additional CopiesPer Page $0.10 $0.25 ($0.15) 40% Public Records$0.25100%Subpoena Processing Fees1.03 CC5Complying with each subpoena and delivering records to attorney, attorney's representative, or deposition officerEach$16 $15 $1 107% Evidence Code$15100%1.04 CC6Clerical costs incurred in locating and making records availablePer Hour$26 $24 $2 108% Evidence Code$24100%1.05 CC7Standard reproduction of documents 8 1/2 x 14 inches or lessPer Page$0.20 $0.10 $0.10 200% Evidence Code$0.10100%1.06 CC8Standard reproduction of larger size documentsPer Page$0.30 Actual CostEvidence CodeActual Cost1.07 CC9Daily cost for City employee required to remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoenaPer Day$291 $275 $16.00 106% Govt Code Sec$275100%Campaign and Candidate Fees1.08 CC13Campaign Disclosure Statements (FPPC)Per Page$0.10 $0.10 $0.00 100% Govt Code 810$0.10100%1.09 CC14Candidate StatementsPer Statement$600 Actual CostElection Code Actual Cost1.10Candidate Processing FeePer Application$25Election Code $25100%Other Fees1.11 CC17Preparing Proof of Residence Letters or Notarizing Proof of Living DocumentsPer Signature$9 $15 ($6) 60% Govt Code 121$15100%1.12 CC18PostageEachActual Cost Actual CostSet by USPS Actual Cost1.13All PhotocopiesPer Page $0.10 $0.25 ($0.15) 40% Public Records$0.25100%2. CITY MANAGER2.01 CM1Film Application PermitEach$573 $289 $284 198% User Fee$289100%3. FINANCEBusiness License:3.01 F1Master ListEach$9 $11 ($2) 82% User Fee$11100%3.02 F1Monthly UpdateEach$9 $11 ($2) 82% User Fee$11100%3.03Business License CopyPer Copy$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% Public Records$0.25100%3.04Business License Certificate ReprintEach$10 $11 ($1) 91% User Fee$11100%3.05 F2Overdue Invoices (10% minimum)Penalty1% of Bill Monthly1% of Bill MonthlyPenalty1% of Bill MonthlyCannabis Operator Fees3.06 F3Cannabis Operator Permit ApplicationPer Application$7,791 $9,676 ($1,885) 81% User Fee$9,676100%3.07 F3Cannabis Business InspectionPer Inspection$373 $468 ($95) 80% User Fee$468100%3.08 F3Cannabis Operator PermitPer Business$15,809 $18,343 ($2,534) 86% User Fee$18,343100%Miscellaneous FeesReturned Check Fees3.09 F4First CheckEach$25 $25 $0 100% Civil Code Sec$25100%3.10 F4Subsequent Returned ChecksEach$35 $35 $0 100% Civil Code Sec$35100%Credit Card Fees3.11 F5Transaction FeePercentage of Fee Charged2.20% 3.00%Surcharge3.00%100%4. LIBRARYDamaged and Missing Materials4.01AV Materials (contents or item damage)Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Penalty Actual Cost4.02Missing Book, DVD, etc. from SetEachActual Cost Actual CostPenalty Actual Cost4.03Missing CD - from Audio Book Vendors that offer ReplacementEachated Cost of Seted Cost of SetPenalty Prorated Cost of Set4.04Books & EquipmentEachActual Cost Actual CostPenalty Actual CostLost, Replacement Charges - Material Charges4.05CD/DVD CasesEach$2$6 ($4) 33% Penalty$583%4.06Magazines EachActual Cost Actual CostPenalty Actual CostLost, Replacement Charges - Processing Fee (Peninsula Library Automated Network Policy) Applies to all Materials:4.07Catalogued MaterialsEach$5$7 ($2) 71% Set by Peninsu$571%4.08Generic MaterialsEach$2$3 ($1) 67% Set by Peninsu$267%Fines for Overdue Materials4.09Adult Materials, Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs etc. (Only affects adult borrowers)Per Day$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% Penalty$0.25100%4.10Children's Materials - Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs, etc. (Only affects adult borrowers)Per Day$0.15 $0.15 $0.00 100% Penalty$0.15100%4.11 L19Past Due Patron Accounts Referred to a Collection AgencyPer Referral$10.00 $13.00 ($3.00) 77% User Fee$10.00Reserve: Out of County Reserve / Inter-Library Loan4.12 L29SSF residentsEach$3 $39 ($36) 8% User Fee$38%4.13 L29Non-residentsEach$5 $39 ($34) 13% User Fee$1026%Miscellaneous Charges4.14PayPal Convenience FeePer Transaction$0.50 $0.50 $0.00 100% Surcharge$0.50100%4.15 L33USB DrivesEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost4.16Micro SD CardsEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost4.17 L34Field Trip FeeEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostComputer Printouts4.18 L21Black & WhitePer Page$0.15 $0.15 $0.00 100% Market Rate$0.15100%4.19 L21ColorPer Page$0.50 $0.50 $0.00 100% Market Rate$0.50100%4.20 L22History Book - SSFEach$5$5 $0 100% User Fee$5100%History Room Photographs - Digital Copies4.21 L23Copy of CD/DVD/USBEachActual Cost$3User Fee$3100%4.22 L24History Room Photographs Print CopiesEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostPostcards - SSF, 3.5" x 5"4.23 L25Black & WhiteEach$0.50 $0.50 $0.00 100% User Fee$0.50100%4.24 L25ColorEach$1$1 $0 100% User Fee$1100%4.25 L28Postcard, IDEachActual Cost Actual CostSet By USPS Actual CostOther Copies4.26 L26Microfilm CopiesEach$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% User Fee$0.25100%4.27 L27PhotocopyPer Page $0.20 $0.25 ($0.05) 80% User Fee$0.25100%1 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %5. POLICEFingerprinting5.01 P1Fingerprint Cards (All individuals, City Employees excluded) - DOJ or FBI fees may be applicable Per Person$58 $42 $16 138% User Fee$42100%5.02 P1Live Scan Fingerprinting - DOJ or FBI fees may be applicable Per Person$75 $79 ($4) 94% User Fee$79100%PermitsAlarm Registration (Commercial)5.03 P2New/RenewalEach$27 $34 ($7) 79% User Fee$34100%Bingo5.04 P5Initial Permit (Refundable if denied)Each$58 $205 ($147) 28% User Fee$205100%5.05 P5Annual RenewalEach$539 $205 $334 263% User Fee$205100%Card room I.D. Card:5.06 P6Initial Operator PermitEach$1,803 $615 $1,188 293% User Fee$615100%5.07 P6Initial Employee PermitEach$359 $205 $154 175% User Fee$205100%5.08 P6Annual Renewal (for operator & employee permit)Each$90 $205 ($115) 44% User Fee$205100%5.09 P6ReplacementEach$90 $102 ($12) 88% User Fee$102100%Cab Company:5.10 P7Driver PermitEach$58 $243 ($185) 24% User Fee$243100%Vehicle for Hire:5.11 P8Initial Certificate of Convenience and NecessityEach $7,223 $2,050 $5,173 352% User Fee $2,050 100%5.12 P8Certificate of RenewalEach$180 $205 ($25) 88% User Fee$205100%Special Event Permit5.13For ProfitEach$264 $270 ($6) 98% User Fee$270100%5.14 P9Non-Profit Group / Charity EventEach$185 $270 ($85) 69% User Fee$18569%Junk Collector5.15 P10Junk CollectorEach$90 $63 $27 143% User Fee$63100%Massage Establishment or Bath House:5.16 P11Initial PermitEach$1,803 $410 $1,393 440% User Fee$410100%5.17 P11Annual RenewalEach$180 $205 ($25) 88% User Fee$205100%Pawnbroker/Secondhand Goods Background Investigation:5.18 P13DealerEach$1,803 $615 $1,188 293% User Fee$615100%5.19 P13EmployeeEach$359 $205 $154 175% User Fee$205100%Fortune Telling5.20 P14Fortune TellingEach$1,803 $615 $1,188 293% User Fee$615100%Tow Vehicle Companies:5.21 P15Company PermitEach$180 $138 $42 130% User Fee$138100%5.22 P15Driver PermitEach$180 $107 $73 168% User Fee$107100%Renewal:5.23 P16Tow Service Franchise FeeEach$53 $142 ($89) 37% User Fee$2014%5.24 P16Replacement of Lost, Stolen, or Mutilated PermitsEach$42 $142 ($100) 30% User Fee$142100%5.25 P16Reissued PermitsEach$42 $142 ($100) 30% User Fee$142100%Miscellaneous FeesPolice Records5.26P19/P20/P22/P23Media - Non-Redacted (Video Tape, DVD Video, Cassette Tape, CD - Audio)Each$53 $67 ($14) 79% User Fee$67100%5.27 P21Media - Redacted (In Car / Bodycam Video - DVD)Per Hour of Staff Time$106 $247 ($141) 43% User Fee$247100%5.28 P24Police ReportsPer Page$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% User Fee$0.25100%5.29 P17Photographs - Digital Photographs on DisksEach$58 $42 $16 138% User Fee$42100%5.30 P26TranscriptsPer Page$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% User Fee$0.25100%Firearm / Ammunition Storage 5.31 P31Single Firearm Storage Administration Each$359 $364 ($5) 99% User Fee$364100%5.32 P31Each Additional Weapon Storage AdministrationEach$359 $364 ($5) 99% User Fee$364100%5.33 P32Ammunition Storage AdministrationEach $143 $130 $13 110% User Fee $130 100%Special Personnel Services5.34 P25Staff Police OfficerEach$116 $192 ($76) 60% User Fee$12163%5.35 P25Discounted Rate for SSFUSDEach$95 $192 ($97) 49% User Fee$10052%Other Miscellaneous Fees5.36 P33Clearance LetterEach$10 $31 ($21) 32% User Fee$31100%5.37 P18Vehicle AbatementEach$359 $254 $105 141% User Fee$254100%5.38 P28Towed Vehicle Release, Negligent OperatorEach$180 $126 $54 143% User Fee$126100%5.39 P27Emergency Response to Driving Under the Influence (DUI) AccidentsEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost5.40 P27Incident Response (includes Accident, Hazmat, DUI or other incident)EachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostFalse Alarm5.41 P32nd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per Incident$106 $106 $0 100% Penalty$106100%5.42 P33rd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per Incident$211 $211 $0 100% Penalty$211100%5.43 P34th and other additional alarms within 12 months of the 1st preventable alarmPer Incident$529 $529 $0 100% Penalty$529100%5.44 P4False Alarm Fine AppealPer Appeal$58 $68 ($10) 85% Penalty$68100%2 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %6. FIRETransport Fees6.01 F1ALS IPer Trip $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) 66% User Fee $2,500 81%6.02 F2ALS IIPer Trip $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) 66% User Fee $2,500 81%6.03 F3BLS (Emergency) Per Trip$2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) 66% User Fee$2,50081%6.04 F4BLS (Non-Emergency)Per Trip$704 $1,076 ($372) 65% User Fee$87281%6.05First Responder FeePer Response$461User Fee$37581%6.06 F7Mileage (All levels)Per Mile$53 $23 $30 230% User Fee$23100%6.07 F8OxygenPer Use$127 $137 ($10) 93% User Fee$137100%Fire Service Training6.08 F9First-Aid / Adult CPR / AED Classes for Residents (cost of textbook and certification card)Per Person$31 $37 ($6) 84% User Fee$37100%6.09 F10First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Non-ResidentsPer Person$106 $37 $69 286% User Fee$37100%6.10 F11First-Aid / CPR Classes for SSF BusinessesPer Person$58 $21 $37 276% User Fee$21100%6.11 F13Pediatric Education for Prehospital Professionals (For residents and non-residents)Per Person$127 $115 $12 110% User Fee$115100%American Heart Association "Professional Level" courses for the public and other outside agencies6.12 F14ACLS Knowledge and Skills Review WorkshopPer Person$185 $949 ($764) 19% User Fee$949100%Initial Recognition6.13 F15Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per Person$248 $1,067 ($819) 23% User Fee$1,067100%6.14 F15Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per Person $248 $949 ($701) 26% User Fee $949 100%6.15 F15HCP)Per Person$80 $206 ($126) 39% User Fee$206100%Re-recognition6.16 F16Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per Person$201 $534 ($333) 38% User Fee$534100%6.17 F16Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per Person $201 $474 ($273) 42% User Fee $474 100%6.18 F16HCP)Per Person $53 $103 ($50) 51% User Fee $103 100%Other Training Service6.19 F20Other EMS Continuing Education ClassesEach$8 $18 ($10) 44% User Fee$18100%6.20 F23Emergency Response Team Class (Incl. Fire extinguisher training)Per Person$29 $139 ($110) 21% User Fee$139100%6.21 F24Permit Required Confined Space ClassPer Person$29 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.22 F25Hazardous Materials Responder ClassPer Person$29 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.23 F26Technical Rescue ClassPer Person$29 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.24 F27Vehicle Extrication ClassPer Person$29 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.25 F28Other Fire Training Continuing Education ClassesPer Person$29 $139 ($110) 21% User Fee$139100%6.26 F29,pp qParticipatePer Person User Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.27 F30Certification Fees required by Certifying AuthorityPer Person User Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.28Facility Use Fee (Classroom, Tower, or Grounds)Per Day Market Rate Actual Cost + 10% AdminFIRE OPERATIONAL PERMITS (Base + Permit Fee) Base Operational Permit Fee6.290-5,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$145User Fee$145100%6.305,001-10,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$193User Fee$193100%6.3110,001-25,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$241User Fee$241100%6.3225,001-50,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$290User Fee$290100%6.3350,001-100,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$386User Fee$386100%6.34100,001-500,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$483User Fee$483100%6.35500,001-1,000,000 sq. ft.Base Fee$579User Fee$579100%No to Low Hazard Operational Permits 6.36Cellulose Nitrate FilmEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.37Child-care CenterEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.38ERRC SystemEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.39 F61Fire Alarm SystemEach$527 $80 $447 659% User Fee$80100%6.40 F67Large Family Day CareEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.41Mobile Food Prep VehicleEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.42 F74Permit Required Confined SpaceEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.43Place of AssemblyEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.44 F78Residential Care FacilityEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%Medium Hazard6.45Covered and Open Mall BuildingEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.46 F54Combustible FibersEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.47 F59Dry CleaningEach$527 $113 $414 466% User Fee$113100%6.48Industrial OvenEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.49Hospitals & Psychiatric HospitalEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.50Liquid or Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly BuildingsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.51 F68Lumber YardEach$703 $113 $590 622% User Fee$113100%6.52Plant ExtractionEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.53Pyroxylin PlasticsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.54Open Flame & CandlesEach$176 $113 $63 156% User Fee$113100%6.55 F76Radioactive MaterialsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.56 F77Refrigeration EquipmentEach$176 $113 $63 156% User Fee$113100%6.57Rooftop HeliportsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.58Stationary Fuel Cell Power SystemsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.59 F81Storage of Scrap TireEach$527 $113 $414 466% User Fee$113100%6.60Waste Handling FacilityEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.61 F82Wood ProductsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%Actual Cost + 10% AdminActual Cost + 10% AdminActual Cost + 10% Admin3 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %High Hazard6.62 F49Aerosol ProductsEach $351 $193 $158 182% User Fee $193 100%6.63Aviation FacilityEach $351 $193 $158 182% User Fee $193 100%6.64 F60Dust ProducingEach$527 $193 $334 273% User Fee$193100%6.65 F57Compressed GasEach$176 $193 ($17) 91% User Fee$193100%6.66 F58Cryogenic GasEach$527 $193 $334 273% User Fee$193100%6.67Cutting and WeldingEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.68ExplosivesEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.69 F62Flammable / Combustible LiquidsEach$527 $193 $334 273% User Fee$193100%6.70 F63Hazardous MaterialsEach$703 $193 $510 364% User Fee$193100%6.71 F65High Piled StorageEach$703 $193 $510 364% User Fee$193100%6.72 F69Liquefied Petroleum GasEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.73 F70MagnesiumEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.74 F55Miscellaneous Combustible StorageEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.75Mobile of Hydrogen Fueled VehiclesEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.76 F71Motor Fuel DispensingEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.77 F79Repair GaragesEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.78 F80Spraying or DippingEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.79Tire Rebuilding PlantEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%Group R - Division 1 and 2 Occupancies with 3 or more Dwelling Units per Building6.80 F433-10 UnitsEach$264 $193 $71 137% User Fee$193100%6.81 F4311-100 UnitsEach$351 $386 ($35) 91% User Fee$386100%6.82 F43101-200 UnitsEach$1,406 $579 $827 243% User Fee$579100%6.83 F43201-300 UnitsEach$2,109 $772 $1,337 273% User Fee$772100%6.84 F43301-350 UnitsEach$2,812 $869 $1,943 324% User Fee$869100%6.85 F43350+ UnitsPer 100 units$1,406 $290 $1,116 485% User Fee$290100%Special Activity Permits6.86 F89Candles or Open Flames in Assembly AreasPer Event$351 $366 ($15) 96% User Fee$366100%6.87 F90Carnivals and FairsPer Event$703 $366 $337 192% User Fee$366100%6.88 F91Christmas Tree LotsPer Event$703 $366 $337 192% User Fee$366100%6.89 F92Explosives or Blasting AgentsEach$703 $366 $337 192% User Fee$366100%6.90 F93Fire Hydrants and Water-Control ValvesPer Event$351 $366 ($15) 96% User Fee$366100%6.91 F95Fireworks Displays by a Licensed ProfessionalPer Event$703 $366 $337 192% User Fee$366100%6.92 F96Fumigation/Thermal InsecticidePer Occurrence$176 $366 ($190) 48% User Fee$366100%6.93Outdoor Assembly EventPer Event$366User Fee$366100%6.94 F98Parade FloatsPer Event$351 $366 ($15) 96% User Fee$366100%6.95 F99Temporary Membrane Structures (tents)Per Structure$351 $366 ($15) 96% User Fee$366100%6.96 F101Failure to Obtain a PermitPenalty2x Permit Cost2x Permit CostPenalty 2x Permit CostFire and Life Safety - Plan Check (includes 2 checks and 1 re-check)6.97 F108$1 - $6,000Base$88.00 $203.00 ($115.00) 43% User Fee$203.00100%6.98 F108$6,001 - $25,000Base$88.00 $202.66 ($114.66) 43% User Fee$202.66100%0%6.100 F108$6,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$9.24 $11.56 ($2.32) 80% User Fee$11.56100%0%6.101 F108$25,001 - $50,000Base$176.00 $422.21 ($246.21) 42% User Fee$422.21100%0%6.102 F108$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$14.06 $21.62 ($7.56) 65% User Fee$21.62100%0%6.103 F108$50,001 - $100,000Base$351.00 $962.64 ($611.64) 36% User Fee$962.64100%0%6.104 F108$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$42.16 $27.36 $14.80 154% User Fee$27.36100%0%6.105 F108$100,001 - $500,000Base$2,810.00 $2,330.59 $479.41 121% User Fee$2,330.59100%0%6.106 F108$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$10.54 $7.98 $2.56 132% User Fee$7.98100%0%6.107 F108$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$7,027.00 $5,522.49 $1,504.51 127% User Fee$5,522.49100%0%6.108 F108$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$8.44 $5.78 $2.66 146% User Fee$5.78100%0%6.109 F108$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Base$11,242.00 $8,410.40 $2,831.60 134% User Fee$8,410.40100%0%6.110 F108$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Each $1,000$3.74 $2.46 $1.28 152% User Fee$2.46100%0%6.111 F108$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Base$18,737.00 $13,324.91 $5,412.09 141% User Fee$13,324.91100%0%6.112 F108$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Each $1,000$5.62 $3.12 $2.50 180% User Fee$3.12100%0%6.113 F108$5,000,001 - $10,000,000Base$29,979.00 $19,556.71 $10,422.29 153% User Fee$19,556.71100%0%6.114 F108$5,000,001 - $10,000,000Each $1,000$2.25 $1.32 $0.93 170% User Fee$1.32100%0%6.115 F108$10,000,001 - $25,000,000Base$41,221.00 $26,143.16 $15,077.84 158% User Fee$26,143.16100%0%6.116 F108$10,000,001 - $25,000,000Each $1,000$1.00 $0.76 $0.24 132% User Fee$0.76100%0%6.117 F108$25,000,001 - $50,000,000Base$56,211.00 $37,492.13 $18,718.87 150% User Fee$37,492.13100%0%6.118 F108$25,000,001 - $50,000,000Each $1,000$0.30 $0.26 $0.04 115% User Fee$0.26100%0%6.119 F108$50,000,001+Base$63,705.00 $44,078.59 $19,626.41 145% User Fee$44,078.59100%0%6.120 F108$50,000,001+Each $1,000$1.27 $0.13 $1.14 977% User Fee$0.13100%0%6.121 F111Additional Fire Plan Check Review - 4th submittal - 2 hr minPer Hour$176 $209 ($33) 84% User Fee$209.00100%0%Fire Protection SystemsFire Protection Systems - Plan Check (includes 2 checks and 1 recheck)6.122 F33$1 - $6,000Base$176.00 $321.00 ($145.00) 55% User Fee$321.00100%6.123 F33$6,001 - $25,000Base$176.00 $320.88 ($144.88) 55% User Fee$320.88100%0%6.124 F33$6,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$9.24 $8.00 $1.24 116% User Fee$8.00100%0%6.125 F33$25,001 - $50,000Base$351.00 $472.87 ($121.87) 74% User Fee$472.87100%0%6.126 F33$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$3.51 $13.51 ($10.00) 26% User Fee$13.51100%0%6.127 F33$50,001 - $100,000Base$439.00 $810.64 ($371.64) 54% User Fee$810.64100%0%6.128 F33$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$1.76 $5.07 ($3.31) 35% User Fee$5.07100%0%6.129 F33$100,001 - $500,000Base$527.00 $1,063.97 ($536.97) 50% User Fee$1,063.97100%0%6.130 F33$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$1.31 $1.39 ($0.08) 94% User Fee$1.39100%0%6.131 F33$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$1,054.00 $1,621.28 ($567.28) 65% User Fee$1,621.28100%0%6.132 F33$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$3.51 $3.45 $0.06 102% User Fee$3.45100%0%6.133 F33$1,000,001+Base$2,810.00 $3,343.89 ($533.89) 84% User Fee$3,343.89100%0%6.134 F33$1,000,001+Each $1,000$0.93 $0.76 $0.17 122% User Fee$0.76100%0%Fire Protection Systems - Permit (includes upto 2 inspections) 6.135 F109$1 - $6,000Base$527.00 $439.10 $87.90 120% User Fee$439.10100%6.136 F109$6,001 - $25,000Base$527.00 $439.10 $87.90 120% User Fee$439.10100%0%6.137 F109$6,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$9.24 $11.56 ($2.32) 80% User Fee$11.56100%0%6.138 F109$25,001 - $50,000Base$703.00 $658.65 $44.35 107% User Fee$658.65100%0%6.139 F109$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$14.06 $24.99 ($10.93) 56% User Fee$24.99100%0%6.140 F109$50,001 - $100,000Base$1,054.00 $1,283.51 ($229.51) 82% User Fee$1,283.51100%0%6.141 F109$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$7.03 $6.76 $0.27 104% User Fee$6.76100%0%6.142 F109$100,001 - $500,000Base$1,406.00 $1,621.28 ($215.28) 87% User Fee$1,621.28100%0%6.143 F109$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$4.39 $5.40 ($1.01) 81% User Fee$5.40100%0%6.144 F109$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$3,162.00 $3,782.99 ($620.99) 84% User Fee$3,782.99100%0%6.145 F109$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$7.73 $3.92 $3.81 197% User Fee$3.92100%0%6.146 F109$1,000,001+Base$7,027.00 $5,742.04 $1,284.96 122% User Fee$5,742.04100%0%6.147 F109$1,000,001+Each $1,000$0.88 $1.72 ($0.84) 51% User Fee$1.72100%0%6.148 F32Installation or Modification of a Fire Protection System Without a PermitPenalty2x Permit Cost2x Permit CostPenalty 2x Permit Cost4 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Other Fire Prevention Inspections6.149 F35Annual Fire Inspection (Basic)Each $264 $314 ($50) 84% User Fee $314 100%6.150 F40Annual High-rise Building (2 Hr. Min)Per Hour $352 $419 ($67) 84% User Fee $419 100%6.151 F41New Occupancy / BusinessEach$351 $314 $37 112% User Fee$314100%6.152 F45Title 19, 5 Year Automatic Fire Sprinkler CertificationPer System$351 $400 ($49) 88% User Fee$400100%6.153 F36Re-inspection Per Inspection$176 $209 ($33) 84% User Fee$209100%6.154 F39Inspection for Which a Fee is not Specifically IndicatedPer Inspection$176 $209 ($33) 84% User Fee$209100%6.155 F37Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours (2 hour minimum)Per Hour$176 $254 ($78) 69% User Fee$254100%6.156Inspection Cancellation FeeEach$209Penalty$209100%Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Fees6.157 F104Application for Use of Alternate Methods of ProtectionPer Request$264 $145 $119 182% User Fee$145100%6.158 F113Key Box ServicePer Location$88 $114 ($26) 77% User Fee$114100%6.159 F105Emergency Response DUI Cost RecoveryPer Incident Actual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost6.160 F106Emergency Response Hazmat Cost RecoveryPer Incident Actual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost6.161 F107InvestigationsPer Hour$176 $209 ($33) 84% User Fee$209100%6.162 F112Fire WatchEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost6.163 F102Hazard Mitigation Fee (Includes all other incident types)EachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostDepartmental Surcharges6.164Technology Fee (applies to permit fee)Percentage3%User Fee3%100%Preventable False Alarms6.165 F1142nd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per Incident$106 $109 ($3) 97% Penalty$109100%6.166 F1143rd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per Incident$211 $217 ($6) 97% Penalty$217100%6.167 F1144th and other additional alarms within 12 months of 1st preventable alarmPer Incident$529 $544 ($15) 97% Penalty$544100%7. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNINGPre-Application Meeting7.01j(g yFaçade)Each $2,000 $404 $1,596 495% User Fee $404 100%7.02Medium Project (Non-Residential up to 10 Units)Each $2,000 $1,213 $787 165% User Fee $1,213 100%7.03Large Project (Non-Residential over 10 Units)Each$2,000 $6,173 ($4,173) 32% User Fee$6,173100%Public Hearing ApplicationsConditional Use Permit / Site Development Review7.04 PL4Multi-Family Residential or Civic UseEach$3,461 $14,327 ($10,866) 24% User Fee$14,327100%7.05 PL4All OthersEach $4,488 $10,284 ($5,796) 44% User Fee $10,284 100%7.06 PL5ModificationEach$2,333 $5,231 ($2,898) 45% User Fee$5,231100%Minor Use Permit7.07 PL7ResidentialEach$1,900 $2,603 ($703) 73% User Fee$2,00077%7.08 PL7All OthersEach $1,725 $2,199 ($474) 78% User Fee $2,199 100%7.09 PL7Small CellEach$1,390User Fee$1,390100%Design Review - Signs7.10 PL22Type A (up to 25 sq.ft.)Each$173 $580 ($407) 30% User Fee$25043%7.11 PL22Type B (up to 100 sq.ft.)Each$862 $969 ($107) 89% User Fee$90093%7.12 PL22Type C / Master SignEach$1,725 $2,199 ($474) 78% User Fee$2,199100%Design Review7.13 PL23Single Family Residential / New or Additions to 2 to 3 UnitsEach$1,212 $2,603 ($1,391) 47% User Fee$2,603100%7.14 PL24Multi-Family Residential / Subdivisions 4 of More Units / Modifications / Additions to 4 of More UnitsEach$2,161 $3,412 ($1,251) 63% User Fee$3,412100%7.15 PL25Commercial and IndustrialEach$2,559 $3,816 ($1,257) 67% User Fee$3,816100%7.16 PL26Projects Requiring Planning Commission ApprovalEach$1,464 $5,029 ($3,565) 29% User Fee$5,029100%7.17 PL27Resubmitted (after 2 reviews by Design Review Board)Each$1,509 $2,199 ($690) 69% User Fee$2,199100%Environmental7.18 PL28Categorical ExemptionEach$173 $287 ($114) 60% User Fee$287100%7.19 PL29Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration and other Contract Planning StudiesEach$5,175 $16,348 ($11,173) 32% User Fee$16,348100%7.20 PL30Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Each$10,349 $20,391 ($10,042) 51% User Fee$20,391100%7.21Environmental Documents Prepared by 3rd PartyEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostSubdivisions7.22 PL31Tentative Subdivision MapEach$862 $2,603 ($1,741) 33% User Fee$2,603100%7.23 PL32Tentative Parcel MapEach$173 $2,199 ($2,026) 8% User Fee$2,199100%Transportation Demand Management Plan:7.24 PL20Initial Filing FeeEach$1,208 $2,603 ($1,395) 46% User Fee$2,603100%7.25 PL20Annual Monitoring (plus survey cost)Each $1,725 $1,795 ($70) 96% User Fee $1,795 100%7.26 PL20Tri-annualEach$1,725 $1,795 ($70) 96% User Fee$1,795100%5 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Other Public Hearing Applications7.27 PL12VarianceEach$4,312 $9,274 ($4,962) 46% User Fee$9,274100%7.28 PL14Master PlanEach$20,898 $17,359 $3,539 120% User Fee$17,359100%7.29 PL15Development AgreementEach$18,422 $13,316 $5,106 138% User Fee$13,316100%7.30 PL1Planned Unit DevelopmentEach$9,844 $14,327 ($4,483) 69% User Fee$14,327100%7.31 PL2Precise PlanEach$9,844 $8,263 $1,581 119% User Fee$8,263100%7.32 PL3Precise Plan Modification (Residential Only)Each$6,391 $6,242 $149 102% User Fee$6,242100%7.33 PL6Temporary Use PermitEach$1,647 $1,209 $438 136% User Fee$1,209100%7.34 PL8Zoning Amendment (Text)Each$8,625 $15,337 ($6,712) 56% User Fee$15,337100%7.35 PL9Rezoning MapEach$8,625 $11,295 ($2,670) 76% User Fee$11,295100%7.36 PL11Specific PlanEach$21,074 $18,369 $2,705 115% User Fee$18,369100%7.37 PL13General Plan AmendmentsEach$9,841 $18,774 ($8,933) 52% User Fee$18,774100%Modifications & Waivers7.38 PL21Minor (Staff Review)Each$259 $855 ($596) 30% User Fee$855100%7.39 PL21Major (Planning Commission Review)Each$1,725 $3,007 ($1,282) 57% User Fee$3,007100%Time Extensions7.40 PL18Non-Conforming UseEach$862 $2,963 ($2,101) 29% User Fee$2,963100%7.41 PL19Time Extension for all Other Permits and MapsEach$862 $2,154 ($1,292) 40% User Fee$2,154100%Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to the City Council by:7.42 PL17Appeal of the Chief Planner's decision to the Planning CommissionEach$862 $4,220 ($3,358) 20% User Fee$4,220100%7.43 PL16Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to City Council Each$1,725 $5,231 ($3,506) 33% User Fee$5,231100%Miscellaneous Fees7.44 PL34Minor Changes to Approved PermitEach$173 $1,795 ($1,622) 10% User Fee$1,795100%7.45 PL36Inspection Fees: Additional visitsEach$345 $383 ($38) 90% User Fee$383100%7.46 PL37Certificate of AlterationEach$1,725 $3,007 ($1,282) 57% User Fee$3,007100%7.47Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (taxi)Each$173 $1,390 ($1,217) 12% User Fee$1,390100%7.48Sidewalk Dining Permit (Annual)Each$518 $540 ($22) 96% User Fee$540100%7.49 PL10Site Clearance / Zoning Verification LetterEach$173 $179 ($6) 96% User Fee$179100%7.50Zoning Verification ReviewEach$833 $899 ($66) 93% User Fee$899100%7.51Legal NoticesEach$518 $383 $135 135% User Fee$383100%7.52Zoning Administrator DecisionEach$862 $1,592 ($730) 54% User Fee$1,592100%7.53Short Term Rental ApplicationEach$0 $784 ($784) 0% User Fee$10013%Planning Support to Building7.54Single Family Residential (New or Remodel)Each$606User Fee$606100%7.55Multi-Family / Commercial / Industrial (New or Tenant Improvement)Percentage of Building Permit Fee5%User Fee5%100%Master Licensing Agreements (Cell Towers) City Owned Poles7.56 PL51Master Agreement Deposit$4,347 $4,000 $347 109% Deposit$4,000100%Privately Owned Poles7.57 PL51Administrative Deposit Per Pole $983 $1,000 ($17) 98% Deposit $1,000 100%7.58 PL51Attachment Fee / Annual RentPer Pole $1,553 $1,553 $0 100% Market Rent$1,553100%Departmental Surcharges7.59Technology Fee (applies to permit fee)Percentage3%User Fee3%100%8. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - HOUSINGDevelopment Application Including Affordable Housing8.01Application (review BMR Plan)Each $514 User Fee $257 50%8.02Agreement PreparationEach $579 User Fee $289 50%8.03Agreement Preparation - with waiver or Each $966 User Fee$48350%Initial Sale of For-Sale BMR Units8.04Less than 10 BMR unitsEach$282User Fee$14150%8.0510-50 BMR unitsEach$334User Fee$16750%8.06More than 50 BMR unitsEach$462User Fee$23150%8.07Consultant CostsEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostInitial Lease Up of Rental BMR Units8.08Less than 10 BMR unitsEach$282User Fee$14150%8.0910-50 BMR unitsEach$334User Fee$16750%8.10More than 50 BMR unitsEach$462User Fee$23150%8.11Non-profit, fully-affordable projectEach$128User Fee$6450%8.12Consultant CostsEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostBMR Monitoring8.13Condos (per unit)Each$51User Fee$08.14Rentals (per development)Per Development$166User Fee$8350%Refinance and or Subordination of Agreement or Loan8.15Single Family or CondoEach$322User Fee$16150%8.16Multi-FamilyEach$733User Fee$36650%8.17Payoff DemandEach$51User Fee$51100%8.18Resale Administration - Single Family / CondoEach$1,628User Fee$1,628100%Real Estate Transactions8.19Initial Consideration for Purchase OffersEach$847User Fee$847100%Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility8.20TEFRA HearingEach $1,252 User Fee $1,252 100%9. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDINGSingle Family ResidentialPermit (Inspection)9.01 BL3$1 - $500Base$84.00 $189.47 ($105.47) 44% User Fee$189.47100%9.02 BL3$501 - $2,000Base$84.00 $189.47 ($105.47) 44% User Fee$189.47100%0%9.03 BL3$501 - $2,000Each $100$2.00 $9.47 ($7.47) 21% User Fee$9.47100%0%9.04 BL3$2,001 - $25,000Base$112.00 $331.57 ($219.57) 34% User Fee$331.57100%0%9.05 BL3$2,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$24.00 $18.53 $5.47 129% User Fee$18.53100%0%9.06 BL3$25,001 - $50,000Base$672.00 $757.87 ($85.87) 89% User Fee$757.87100%0%9.07 BL3$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$27.00 $32.84 ($5.84) 82% User Fee$32.84100%0%9.08 BL3$50,001 - $100,000Base$1,342.00 $1,578.89 ($236.89) 85% User Fee$1,578.89100%0%9.09 BL3$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$13.42 $13.58 ($0.16) 99% User Fee$13.58100%0%9.10 BL3$100,001 - $500,000Base$2,014.00 $2,257.81 ($243.81) 89% User Fee$2,257.81100%0%9.11 BL3$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$8.39 $7.70 $0.69 109% User Fee$7.70100%0%9.12 BL3$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$5,371.00 $5,336.65 $34.35 101% User Fee$5,336.65100%0%9.13 BL3$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$16.11 $5.75 $10.36 280% User Fee$5.75100%0%9.14 BL3$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Base$9,398.00 $8,210.22 $1,187.78 114% User Fee$8,210.22100%0%9.15 BL3$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Each $1,000$1.68 $2.84 ($1.16) 59% User Fee$2.84100%0%9.16 BL3$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Base$16,781.00 $13,894.22 $2,886.78 121% User Fee$13,894.22100%0%9.17 BL3$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Each $1,000$2.07 $3.16 ($1.09) 66% User Fee$3.16100%0%9.18 BL3$5,000,001+Base$20,138.00 $20,209.78 ($71.78) 100% User Fee$20,209.78100%0%9.19 BL3$5,000,001+Each $1,000$0.89 $1.58 ($0.69) 56% User Fee$1.58100%0%9.20Plan Check FeeVariesUser Fee 65% of Building Permit Fee65% of Building Permit Fee6 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Commercial / Industrial / Multi-FamilyPermit (Inspection)9.21 BL3$1 - $500Base$84.00 $94.73 ($10.73) 89% User Fee$94.73100%9.22 BL3$501 - $2,000Base$84.00 $94.73 ($10.73) 89% User Fee$94.73100%0%9.23 BL3$501 - $2,000Each $100$2.00 $8.42 ($6.42) 24% User Fee$8.42100%0%9.24 BL3$2,001 - $25,000Base$112.00 $221.04 ($109.04) 51% User Fee$221.04100%0%9.25 BL3$2,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$24.00 $12.01 $11.99 200% User Fee$12.01100%0%9.26 BL3$25,001 - $50,000Base$672.00 $497.35 $174.65 135% User Fee$497.35100%0%9.27 BL3$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$27.00 $11.05 $15.95 244% User Fee$11.05100%0%9.28 BL3$50,001 - $100,000Base$1,342.00 $773.66 $568.34 173% User Fee$773.66100%0%9.29 BL3$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$13.42 $25.58 ($12.16) 52% User Fee$25.58100%0%9.30 BL3$100,001 - $500,000Base$2,014.00 $2,052.56 ($38.56) 98% User Fee$2,052.56100%0%9.31 BL3$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$8.39 $6.12 $2.27 137% User Fee$6.12100%0%9.32 BL3$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$5,371.00 $4,499.83 $871.17 119% User Fee$4,499.83100%0%9.33 BL3$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$16.11 $9.88 $6.23 163% User Fee$9.88100%0%9.34 BL3$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Base$9,398.00 $9,441.76 ($43.76) 100% User Fee$9,441.76100%0%9.35 BL3$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Each $1,000$1.68 $1.44 $0.24 117% User Fee$1.44100%0%9.36 BL3$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Base$16,781.00 $12,315.34 $4,465.66 136% User Fee$12,315.34100%0%9.37 BL3$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Each $1,000$2.07 $6.22 ($4.15) 33% User Fee$6.22100%0%9.38 BL3$5,000,001 - $10,000,000Base$20,138.00 $24,756.98 ($4,618.98) 81% User Fee$24,756.98100%0%9.39 BL3$5,000,001 - $10,000,000Each $1,000$0.89 $3.49 ($2.60) 26% User Fee$3.49100%0%9.40 BL3$10,000,001 - $25,000,000Base$24,613.00 $42,187.92 ########## 58% User Fee$42,187.92100%0%9.41 BL3$10,000,001 - $25,000,000Each $1,000$0.89 $3.79 ($2.90) 24% User Fee$3.79100%0%9.42 BL3$25,000,001 - $50,000,000Base$38,038.00 $98,996.35 ########## 38% User Fee$98,996.35100%0%9.43 BL3$25,000,001 - $50,000,000Each $1,000$0.45 $3.13 ($2.68) 14% User Fee$3.13100%0%9.44 BL3$50,000,001+Base$49,226.00 $177,151.36 ########## 28% User Fee $177,151.36100%0%9.45 BL3$50,000,001+Each $1,000$0.98 $1.56 ($0.58) 63% User Fee$1.56100%0%Commercial Plan Check 9.46Up to $50,000VariesUser Fee 60% of Building Permit Fee9.47$50,000 to $1,000,000VariesUser Fee 65% of Building Permit Fee9.48$1,000,001+VariesUser Fee 75% of Building Permit FeeMechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (Plan Check and Inspection) 9.49 BL7MEP Plan Check and InspectionPer TradeVariesUser Fee 15% of Building PBuilding Flat Fees9.50 BL1Inspections Or Re-Inspections Outside Normal Business HoursPer Hour$112 $212 ($100) 53% User Fee$212100%9.51 BL2Re-Inspections During Normal HoursPer Hour$112 $189 ($77) 59% User Fee$189100%9.52 BL6Permit Process - Initial Project Input, Fee Collection (New / Existing Residential, Commercial, and MF)Each$224 $260 ($36) 86% User Fee$260100%9.53 BL9Additional Plan Review Required by Changes, Additions or Revisions to Approved PlansPer 30 Min$56User Fee Actual Cost + 15% Processing Fee9.54OTC or Standalone MEP PermitEach$276User Fee$276100%Photovoltaic Fees9.55 BL16Commercial PhotovoltaicEach$391 $608 ($217) 64% User Fee$608100%9.56 BL17Residential PhotovoltaicEach$224 $276 ($52) 81% User Fee$276100%Residential Miscellaneous Fees9.57Residential Water HeaterEach$125 $137 ($12) 91% User Fee$137100%9.58Residential ReroofEach$350 $512 ($162) 68% User Fee$512100%9.59Residential Garage DoorEach$125 $324 ($199) 39% User Fee$324100%9.60Residential Kitchen UpdateEach$350 $654 ($304) 54% User Fee$654100%9.61Residential Bath UpdateEach$250 $467 ($217) 54% User Fee$467100%9.62Residential Furnace ReplacementEach$125 $184 ($59) 68% User Fee$184100%9.63Residential Service UpgradeEach$150 $231 ($81) 65% User Fee$231100%9.64Residential Lateral ReplacementEach$150 $184 ($34) 82% User Fee$184100%9.65Residential EV ChargerEach$130 $279 ($149) 47% User Fee$279100%Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO)Review9.66Small (500 - 2,500 square feet)Each $493 User Fee $493 100%9.67Large (2,500+ square feet)Each$1,213User Fee$1,213100%SurchargesDepartmental Surcharges9.68 PL38General Plan Maintenance Fee (applies to Building permit valuation greater than $100,000)Percentage0.16% 0.11% 0.05% 140% User Fee0.11%100%9.69Technology Fee (applies to permit fee)Percentage3%User Fee3%100%9.70Building Mandated Training SurchargePer Permit$8$7 $1 108% User Fee$7State Surcharges9.70California Building Standards CommissionPer $25,000$1$1 $0 100% SB1473$1100%9.71SMIP Fee - ResidentialPer $1,000$0.28 $0.28 $0 100% State Regulatio$0.28100%9.72SMIP Fee - CommercialPer $1,000$0.13 $0.13 $0 100% State Regulatio$0.13100%10. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERINGEncroachment PermitsSewer Improvements10.01Sewer Lateral Video ReviewEach$75 $96 ($21) 78% User Fee$8690%10.02Sewer Lateral CertificateEach$78 $63 $15 124% User Fee$5790%10.03Sewer Lateral Plan Review and PermitEach$325 $382 ($57) 85% User Fee$34290%Minor Frontage Improvements10.04MFI Plan ReviewEach$325 $315 $10 103% User Fee$28290%Small Cell Towers10.05Cell Phone Tower Review (City owned pole)Each$325 $2,045 ($1,720) 16% User Fee$2,045100%10.06Cell Phone Tower Review (non-City pole)Each$325 $503 ($178) 65% User Fee$503100%Utility Improvements10.07Utility / Outside Service Connection ReviewEach$325 $283 $42 115% User Fee$283100%10.08Utility Access and TCP Only Review Each$325 $220 $105 148% User Fee$220100%Dig Once10.09Dig Once AdvertisementEach$325 $503 ($178) 65% User Fee$503100%10.10Dig Once Policy AdministrationDeposit$10,000User Fee$10,000100%65% of Building Permit Fee75% of Building Permit Fee15% of Building Permit FeeActual Cost + 15% Processing Fee60% of Building Permit Fee7 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Potholing10.11Potholing PermitEach$325 $670 ($345) 49% User Fee$670100%Revocable Encroachment Permits10.12Revocable Encroachment Plan ReviewEach$325 $283 $42 115% User Fee$283100%10.13AgreementEach$325 $709 ($384) 46% User Fee$709100%10.14Revocable Encroachment Annual Renewal FeeAnnually$325 $189 $136 172% User Fee$189100%Miscellaneous10.15No Parking SignsEach$3$5 ($2) 60% User Fee$5100%10.16Sidewalk Closure for Maintenance or Construction - per day of sidewalk closurePer Day$152 $96 $56 158% User Fee$96100%Public Improvement Plan Check (Cost of ROW Improvements)10.17 PW1Up to $49,999Base$609.00 $1,726.92 ($1,117.92) 35% User Fee$1,726.92100%10.18 PW1$50,000 - $99,999Base$912.00 $1,726.92 ($814.92) 53% User Fee$1,726.92100%0%10.19 PW1$50,000 - $99,999Each $10,000$31.05 $726.71 ($695.66) 4% User Fee$726.71100%0%10.20 PW1$100,000 - $249,999Base$1,216.00 $5,360.49 ($4,144.49) 23% User Fee$5,360.49100%0%10.21 PW1$100,000 - $249,999Each $10,000$138.00 $321.86 ($183.86) 43% User Fee$321.86100%0%10.22 PW1$250,000 - $499,999Base$4,561.00 $10,188.40 ($5,627.40) 45% User Fee$10,188.40100%0%10.23 PW1$250,000 - $499,999Each $10,000$62.10 $279.18 ($217.08) 22% User Fee$279.18100%0%10.24 PW1$500,000 - $999,999Base$6,082.00 $17,167.89 ########## 35% User Fee$17,167.89100%0%10.25 PW1$500,000 - $999,999Each $10,000$120.00 $130.78 ($10.78) 92% User Fee$130.78100%0%10.26 PW1$1,000,000+Base$12,163.00 $23,706.94 ########## 51% User Fee$23,706.94100%0%10.27 PW1$1,000,000+Each $100,000$12.00 $364.22 ($352.22) 3% User Fee$364.22100%0%10.28 PW14th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisionsEach$152 $1,084 ($932.22) 14% User Fee$1,084100%Public Improvement Permit / Inspection (Cost of ROW Improvements)10.29 PW1.1Up to $49,999Base$456.00 $575.69 ($119.69) 79% User Fee$575.69100%10.30 PW1.1$50,000 - $99,999Base$456.00 $575.69 ($119.69) 79% User Fee$575.69100%0%10.31 PW1.1$50,000 - $99,999Each $5,000$20.70 $326.22 ($305.52) 6% User Fee$326.22100%0%10.32 PW1.1$100,000 - $249,999Base$684.00 $3,837.90 ($3,153.90) 18% User Fee$3,837.90100%0%10.33 PW1.1$100,000 - $249,999Each $5,000$5.20 $127.93 ($122.73) 4% User Fee$127.93100%0%10.34 PW1.1$250,000 - $499,999Base$912.00 $7,675.81 ($6,763.81) 12% User Fee$7,675.81100%0%10.35 PW1.1$250,000 - $499,999Each $5,000$10.35 $76.76 ($66.41) 13% User Fee$76.76100%0%10.36 PW1.1$500,000+Base$1,520.00 $11,513.71 ($9,993.71) 13% User Fee$11,513.71100%0%10.37 PW1.1$500,000+Each $25,000$3.11 $191.90 ($188.79) 2% User Fee$191.90100%0%10.38 PW1.1Additional InspectionsEach $152 $192 ($40) 79% User Fee $192 100%Other Fees10.39Work without a permit (after the fact permit) - Fee + Plan Check FeeEach2x Permit FeePenalty 2x Permit Fee10.40Engineering Staff Construction Coordination Committee (CCC) Per Meeting$152 $173 ($21) 88% User Fee$173100%Permit Work Deposit10.41Sewer Lateral DepositSecurity Deposit $1,000 $1,000 $0 100% Security Depos$1,000100%10.42Minor Frontage ImprovementsSecurity Deposit $2,000 $2,000 $0 100% Security Depos$2,000100%10.43Utility TrenchingSecurity Deposit $2,000 $2,000 $0 100% Security Depos$2,000100%10.44Pothole ProjectsSecurity Deposit $2,000 $2,000 $0 100% Security Depos$2,000100%10.45All other ROW improvement projectsSecurity Deposit $5,000 $5,000 $0 100% Security Depos$5,000100%Mapping10.46Map ExtensionsEach$325 $912 ($587) 36% User Fee$912100%10.47Final / Parcel Map Review and ProcessingEach$325 $5,270 ($4,945) 6% User Fee$5,270100%10.48Property Merger / NoticeEach$325 $2,398 ($2,073) 14% User Fee$2,398100%10.49 PW11Lot Line Adjustment / Certificate of ComplianceEach$325 $2,289 ($1,964) 14% User Fee$2,289100%10.50Lot Conformance / Certificate of ComplianceEach$325 $1,819 ($1,494) 18% User Fee$1,819100%10.51 PW14Grant of Easement / Easement Abandonment RequestEach$3,802 $2,982 $820 127% User Fee$2,982100%10.52Subsequent Engineering Mapping ReviewsEach$456 $661 ($205) 69% User Fee$661100%10.53Engineering AgreementsEach$1,085 $3,297 ($2,212) 33% User Fee$3,297100%10.54Outside Sewer Service AgreementEach$1,085 $5,472 ($4,387) 20% User Fee$5,472100%10.55Benchmark Maintenance FeeEach$152 $220 ($68) 69% User Fee$220100%Subdivision Tentative Map10.56 PW9Minor Tentative Map Each$152 $2,706 ($2,554) 6% User Fee$2,706100%10.57 PW7Major Tentative MapEach$325 $3,948 ($3,623) 8% User Fee$3,948100%10.58Each Additional Lot Over 5Each$26 $55 ($29) 47% User Fee$55100%Transportation10.59 PW16Transportation - Single trip, or a modification of on original permitEach$16 $31 ($15) 52% California Code$1652%10.60 PW17Transportation - Annual or repetitive permitAnnually$90 $94 ($4) 96% California Code$9096%GradingHauling Permit10.61Hauling Permit FeeEach$190 $223 ($33) 85% User Fee$223100%10.62Hauling Permit DepositSecurity Deposit $2,000 $2,000 $0 100% Security Depos$2,000100%Grading Plan Check and Permit10.63 PW2251 - 9,999 Cubic YardsBase$1,216.00 $3,598.91 ($2,382.91) 34% User Fee$3,598.91100%10.64 PW2210,000 - 49,999 Cubic YardsBase$1,520.00 $3,598.91 ($2,078.91) 42% User Fee$3,598.91100%0%10.65 PW2210,000 - 49,999 Cubic YardsEach 10,000 c.y. $178.28 $495.49 ($317.21) 36% User Fee$495.49100%0%10.66 PW2250,000 - 99,999 Cubic YardsBase$2,689.12 $5,580.86 ($2,891.74) 48% User Fee$5,580.86100%0%10.67 PW2250,000 - 99,999 Cubic YardsEach 10,000 c.y. $178.28 $220.22 ($41.94) 81% User Fee$220.22100%0%10.68 PW22100,000 + Cubic YardsBase$2,205.00 $6,681.94 ($4,476.94) 33% User Fee$6,681.94100%0%10.69 PW22100,000 + Cubic YardsEach 10,000 c.y. $114.00 $330.32 ($216.32) 35% User Fee$330.32100%0%10.70 PW234th and subsequent Plan Checks or RevisionsEach$304 $881 ($577) 35% User Fee$881.00100%0%10.71Grading Permit DepositSecurity Deposit $50,000 $50,000 $0 100% Security DepositErosion Control Compliance10.72BaseBase$150.00 $191.90 ($41.90) 78% User Fee$192100%10.73Per 250 cubic yards (round to the nearest 250)Each 250 c.y.$15.00 $15.99 ($0.99) 94% User Fee$16100%8 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Miscellaneous10.74 PW25Inspections Outside of Normal Business HoursPer Hour$228 $227 $1 100% User Fee$227100%10.75 PW26Re-inspection Assessed Under Provisions of Section 305(h)Per Hour$152 $192 ($40) 79% User Fee$192100%10.76 PW27Inspections for which a fee is not specifically indicatedPer Hour$152 $192 ($40) 79% User Fee$192100%10.77Permit reinstatement feeEach$76 $63 $13 121% User Fee$63100%10.78Research for Non-Permit Application InquiresEach$63User Fee$63100%10.79Engineering Staff Time for Services not Specifically IndicatedPer Hour$220User Fee$209%Planning Support10.80Engineering Staffing TAGsPer Meeting $152 $173 ($21) 88% User Fee $173 100%Engineering Design and Conditions Review10.81Single Family Res / new or additions (1-3 units)Each $5,000 Deposit $661 N / A N / A User Fee $661 100%10.82Multi-Family Res / new or modifications (4 or more units)Each$5,000 Deposit $1,762 N / A N / A User Fee$1,762100%10.83Commercial / IndustrialEach$5,000 Deposit $2,202 N / A N / A User Fee$2,202100%10.84Projects requiring City Council ApprovalEach$5,000 Deposit $2,863 N / A N / A User Fee$2,863100%10.853rd and subsequent resubmittalsEach$5,000 Deposit $551 N / A N / A User Fee$551100%Building SupportEngineering Site Review (Cost of Site Improvements)10.86Up to $49,999Base$304.00 $786.52 ($482.52) 39% User Fee$786.52100%10.87$50,000 - $99,999Base$912.00 $786.52 $125.48 116% User Fee$786.52100%0%10.88$50,000 - $99,999Each $10,000$182.00 $528.52 ($346.52) 34% User Fee$528.52100%0%10.89$100,000 - $249,999Base$1,824.00 $3,429.12 ($1,605.12) 53% User Fee$3,429.12100%0%10.90$100,000 - $249,999Each $10,000$111.00 $176.17 ($65.17) 63% User Fee$176.17100%0%10.91$250,000 - $499,999Base$3,496.00 $6,071.72 ($2,575.72) 58% User Fee$6,071.72100%0%10.92$250,000 - $499,999Each $10,000$109.00 $167.36 ($58.36) 65% User Fee$167.36100%0%10.93$500,000 - $999,999Base$6,232.00 $10,255.84 ($4,023.84) 61% User Fee$10,255.84100%0%10.94$500,000 - $999,999Each $10,000$55.00 $105.70 ($50.70) 52% User Fee$105.70100%0%10.95$1,000,000+Base$8,968.00 $15,541.04 ($6,573.04) 58% User Fee$15,541.04100%0%10.96$1,000,000+Each $100,000$27.00 $330.32 ($303.32) 8% User Fee$330.32100%0%10.974th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisionsEach$1,100 $881 $219 125% User Fee$881100%Departmental Surcharges10.98Technology Fee (applies to permit fee)Percentage3%User Fee11. PUBLIC WORKS - WATER QUALITY CONTROLPermits and Renewals: (valid for 3-year time intervals)11.01 PW28Food Facility Discharge PermitEach$152 $1,976 ($1,824) 8% User Fee$75038%11.02 PW28SIU Wastewater Discharge PermitEach$609 $2,440 ($1,831) 25% User Fee$2,10086%11.03 PW28General / Groundwater Discharge PermitEach$152 $515 ($363) 30% User Fee$515100%11.04 PW28Waste / Septage Hauler Discharge PermitEach$152 $605 ($453) 25% User Fee$605100%Inspections and Reviews11.05 PW29Water Quality Compliance ReviewPer Hour$152 $181 ($29) 84% User Fee$181100%11.06 PW31Inspections - Outside of Normal Pretreatment ActivitiesPer Hour$152 $193 ($41) 79% User Fee$193100%11.07 PW32Inspections - Outside of Normal Business HoursPer Hour$152 $193 ($41) 79% User Fee$193100%11.08 PW33Special Monitoring Activities for Enforcement and SurveillancePer Hour$152 $193 ($41) 79% User Fee$193100%11.09 PW34Special Sampling / Equipment UsePer Hour$152 $193 ($41) 79% User Fee$193100%11.10 PW36Water Quality Control Plan ReviewEach$163 $181 ($18) 90% User Fee$181100%11.11Stormwater Facility InspectionEach$580User Fee$30052%11.12Water Quality ReviewPer Hour$152 $189 ($37) 80% User Fee$189100%Wastewater Lab Testing / Analysis11.13 PW35BODEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.14 PW35CODEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.15 PW35TSSEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.16 PW35Oil & GreaseEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.17 PW35Metals (except Hg)EachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.18 PW35HgEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.19 PW35pHEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.20 PW35BioassayEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.21 PW35CNEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.22 PW35PAHEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.23 PW35PhenolEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.24 PW35AmmoniaEach Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Actual Cost11.25 PW35ConductivityEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.26 PW35Oxygen Uptake RateEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.27 PW35OthersEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostAdministrative Code Enforcement11.28 PW37Failure to Comply with Violation NoticeEach$351 $351 $0 100% Penalty$351100%9 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %12. PARKS AND RECREATIONProgram Guide Activities12.01ClassesSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.02AquaticsSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.03SportsSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.04ChildcareSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.05CampsSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.06Adults / Senior ActivitiesSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity GuidePicnic Areas12.07Application ProcessingPer Application $36 $52 ($16) 69% User Fee $37 71%Picnic Areas - Orange Park12.08Refundable Deposit - covers clean-up, repair, and/or overtime costsSecurity Deposit$207 $200 $7 104% Security Depos$215108%12.09Extended HoursPer hour$52 $43 $9 121% Market Rate$54124%Eucalyptus Shelter (15 Tables- 10am-6pm)12.10ResidentPer Day$321 $164 $157 195% Market Rate$331201%12.11Non-ResidentPer Day$336 $164 $172 204% Market Rate$346211%Area #2 (2 tables) - Residential12.12ResidentPer Day$35 $55 ($20) 63% Market Rate$3665%12.13Non-ResidentPer Day$50 $55 ($5) 91% Market Rate$5192%Area #3 (3 tables)12.14ResidentPer Day$51 $81 ($30) 63% Market Rate$5365%12.15Non-ResidentPer Day$66 $81 ($15) 82% Market Rate$81100%Area #4 (4 tables)12.16ResidentPer Day$68 $141 ($73) 48% Market Rate$7050%12.17Non-ResidentPer Day$83 $141 ($58) 59% Market Rate$10071%Area #5 (5 tables)12.18ResidentPer Day$86 $176 ($90) 49% Market Rate$8950%12.19Non-ResidentPer Day$101 $176 ($75) 58% Market Rate$12068%Picnic Areas - Alta LomaArea #1 (6 tables)12.20ResidentPer Day$104 $210 ($106) 50% Market Rate$10751%12.21Non-ResidentPer Day$119 $210 ($91) 57% Market Rate$14067%Area #2 (2 tables)12.22ResidentPer Day$35 $55 ($20) 63% Market Rate$3665%12.23Non-ResidentPer Day$50 $55 ($5) 91% Market Rate$5192%Area #3 (2 tables)12.24ResidentPer Day$35 $55 ($20) 63% Market Rate$3665%12.25Non-ResidentPer Day$50 $55 ($5) 91% Market Rate$5192%Picnic Areas - Avalon Park5 small tables12.26ResidentPer Day$63 $176 ($113) 36% Market Rate$6537%12.27Non-ResidentPer Day$78 $176 ($98) 44% Market Rate$8046%Picnic Areas - Buri Buri ParkI (6 tables)12.28ResidentPer Day$104 $210 ($106) 50% Market Rate$10751%12.29Non-ResidentPer Day$119 $210 ($91) 57% Market Rate$14067%II (2 tables)12.30ResidentPer Day$35 $55 ($20) 63% Market Rate$3665%12.31Non-ResidentPer Day$50 $55 ($5) 91% Market Rate$5192%III (3 tables)12.32ResidentPer Day$51 $81 ($30) 63% Market Rate$5365%12.33Non-ResidentPer Day$66 $81 ($15) 82% Market Rate$81100%IV (3 tables)12.34ResidentPer Day$51 $81 ($30) 63% Market Rate$5365%12.35Non-ResidentPer Day$66 $81 ($15) 82% Market Rate$81100%Picnic Areas - Sellick Park7 tables, includes Campfire area12.36ResidentPer Day$86 $244 ($158) 35% Market Rate$8936%12.37Non-ResidentPer Day$101 $244 ($143) 41% Market Rate$16065%Picnic Areas - Westborough Park12.38Damage Deposit (Refundable)Security Deposit$207 $200 $7 104% Security Depos$215108%12.39Extended HoursPer Hour$52 $43 $9 121% Market Rate$54124%12.40Additional Gas GrillEach $104 $70 $35 150% Market Rate $107 154%Sheltered Area (18 tables)12.41ResidentPer Day$342 $623 ($281) 55% Market Rate$35257%12.42Non-ResidentPer Day$357 $623 ($266) 57% Market Rate$40064%Area 2 (5 tables)12.43ResidentPer Day$124 $176 ($52) 71% Market Rate$12873%12.44Non-ResidentPer Day$140 $176 ($36) 80% Market Rate$14381%Combined Sheltered Area & Area 2 (23 tables)12.45ResidentPer Day$450 $794 ($344) 57% Market Rate$46458%12.46Non-ResidentPer Day$466 $794 ($328) 59% Market Rate$50063%Facility Rentals - Magnolia CenterFull Center 12.47ResidentPer Hour$185 $57 $128 325% Market Rate$191334%12.48Non-ResidentPer Hour$200 $57 $143 351% Market Rate$206361%Meeting Room Rental12.49ResidentPer Hour$83 $29 $54 289% Market Rate$85297%12.50Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $29 $69 338% Market Rate$100345%10 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Facility Rentals - Municipal Services Building12.51Facility Reservation Refundable DepositSecurity Deposit$300 $300 $0 100% Security Depos$300100%12.52Atrium and Room A / B Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$350 $350 $0 100% Security Depos$350100%12.53Social Hall Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$500 $500 $0 100% Security Depos$500100%Social Hall w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.54ResidentPer Hour$201 $78 $123 259% Market Rate$207267%12.55Non-ResidentPer Hour$216 $78 $138 278% Market Rate$222287%12.56Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$186 $78 $108 240% Market Rate$192247%Atrium Kitchen (As add-on to Social Hall only - Min. 2 hour rental)12.57ResidentPer Hour$83 $60 $23 137% Market Rate$86142%12.58Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $60 $38 162% Market Rate$101167%12.59Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $60 $8 113% Market Rate$71118%Social Hall (Min. 5 hour rental)12.60ResidentPer Hour$201 $78 $123 259% Market Rate$207267%12.61Non-ResidentPer Hour$216 $78 $138 278% Market Rate$222287%12.62Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$186 $78 $108 240% Market Rate$192247%Atrium/Marie Peterson Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.63ResidentPer Hour$130 $52 $78 251% Market Rate$134259%12.64Non-ResidentPer Hour$145 $52 $93 280% Market Rate$149289%12.65Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$115 $52 $63 222% Market Rate$119230%Atrium w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental)12.66ResidentPer Hour$119 $52 $67 230% Market Rate$123237%12.67Non-ResidentPer Hour$134 $52 $82 259% Market Rate$138267%12.68Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$104 $52 $52 201% Market Rate$108209%Marie Peterson Room w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental)12.69ResidentPer Hour$104$9 $95 1206% Market Rate$1071243%12.70Non-ResidentPer Hour$119$9 $110 1381% Market Rate$1221415%12.71Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$89$9 $80 1032% Market Rate$921063%Marie Peterson Room w/o Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental)12.72ResidentPer Hour$93$9 $84 1079% Market Rate$961111%12.73Non-ResidentPer Hour$108$9 $99 1253% Market Rate$1111290%12.74Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$78$9 $69 905% Market Rate$81940%Betty Weber Room & Butterfly Room (Min. 1 hour rental)12.75ResidentPer Hour$93 $29 $64 323% Market Rate$96333%12.76Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $29 $69 341% Market Rate$111386%12.77Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $29 $39 237% Market Rate$81282%Community Room w/o Kitchen, No Food (Min. 2 hour rental)12.78ResidentPer Hour$114 $29 $85 397% Market Rate$117408%12.79Non-ResidentPer Hour$129 $29 $100 449% Market Rate$132459%12.80Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$99 $29 $70 344% Market Rate$102355%William M. Belloni Family Room (Min. 2 hour rental)12.81ResidentPer Hour$83 $29 $54 289% Market Rate$85297%12.82Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $29 $69 341% Market Rate$101351%12.83Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $29 $39 237% Market Rate$70244%Rental Extras12.84Portable BarEach$60 $22 $38 278% Market Rate$60278%12.85Coffee PotEach$5$4 $1 139% Market Rate$5143%12.86Sound SystemEach$75 $22 $53 348% Market Rate$75348%12.87Flip Chart with Paper/MarkersEach$12$4 $8 334% Market Rate$12344%12.88LCD ProjectorEach$50 $22 $28 232% Market Rate$50232%12.89Event Day Room Setup AdjustmentEach$75 $43 $32 174% Market Rate$75174%12.90LCD DisplaysEach$20 $22 ($2) 93% Market Rate$2093%12.91Portable StageEach$100 $86 $14 116% Market Rate$100116%12.92Projection ScreensEach$5 $22 ($17) 23% Market Rate$524%12.93Duplicate Permit Fee Retrieval CostEach$25$9 $16 278% User Fee$9100%12.94City Holiday Rental SurchargePer Hour$31 $43 ($12) 72% Surcharge$3274%12.95Co-Sponsored GroupsPer Hour$52 $29 $23 181% Market Rate$54186%12.96Special use RentalsPer Hour$83 $29 $54 289% Market Rate$85297%Facility Rentals - Westborough Park Building12.95Facility Reservation Refundable DepositSecurity Deposit$300 $300 $0 100% Security Depos$300100%12.96Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$350 $350 $0 100% Security Depos$350100%Multi-Use / Activity Rooms w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.97ResidentPer Hour$152 $57 $95 264% Market Rate$157272%12.100Non-ResidentPer Hour$167 $57 $110 290% Market Rate$172299%12.101Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$137 $57 $80 238% Market Rate$142247%Multi-Use Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.102ResidentPer Hour$142 $57 $85 247% Market Rate$146254%12.103Non-ResidentPer Hour$157 $57 $100 273% Market Rate$161280%12.104Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$127 $57 $70 221% Market Rate$131228%Activity Room w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental)12.105ResidentPer Hour$120 $57 $63 209% Market Rate$124215%12.106Non-ResidentPer Hour$135 $57 $78 235% Market Rate$139242%12.107Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$105 $57 $48 183% Market Rate$109190%Facility Rentals - Joseph A. Fernekes Building12.108Facility Reservation Refundable DepositSecurity Deposit$300 $300 $0 100% Security Depos$300100%12.109Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$350 $350 $0 100% Security Depos$350100%Multi Use Activity Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.110ResidentPer Hour$191 $57 $134 332% Market Rate$197342%12.111Non-ResidentPer Hour$206 $57 $149 358% Market Rate$212369%12.112Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$176 $57 $119 306% Market Rate$182317%Rental Extras12.113Outside Gas GrillEach$100 $70 $31 144% Market Rate$107154%11 of 12Attachment 2 Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Facility Rentals - Terrabay Recreation Center12.114Facility Reservation Refundable DepositSecurity Deposit$300 $300 $0 100% Security Depos$300100%12.115Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$350 $350 $0 100% Security Depos$350100%Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen, Gym and Poppy Room (Min. 3 hour rental)12.116ResidentPer Hour$174 $57 $117 303% Market Rate$179312%12.117Non-ResidentPer Hour$189 $57 $132 329% Market Rate$194337%12.118Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$159 $57 $102 277% Market Rate$164285%Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen and Poppy Room (Min. 3 hour rental)12.119ResidentPer Hour$120 $57 $63 209% Market Rate$124215%12.120Non-ResidentPer Hour$135 $57 $78 235% Market Rate$139242%12.121Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$105 $57 $48 183% Market Rate$109190%Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen and Gym (Min. 3 hour rental)12.122ResidentPer Hour$130 $57 $73 226% Market Rate$134233%12.123Non-ResidentPer Hour$145 $57 $88 252% Market Rate$149260%12.124Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$115 $57 $58 200% Market Rate$119207%Iris Room 1 & 2 w/Kitchen (Min. 3 hour rental)12.125ResidentPer Hour$93 $57 $36 162% Market Rate$96167%12.126Non-ResidentPer Hour$108 $57 $51 188% Market Rate$111193%12.127Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$78 $57 $21 136% Market Rate$81141%Gymnasium (Min. 3 hour rental)12.128ResidentPer Hour$104 $57 $47 181% Market Rate$107186%12.129Non-ResidentPer Hour$119 $57 $62 207% Market Rate$122212%12.130Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$89 $57 $32 155% Market Rate$92159%Iris Room 1 and 2 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.131ResidentPer Hour$83 $57 $26 144% Market Rate$85149%12.132Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $57 $41 170% Market Rate$100174%12.133Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $57 $11 118% Market Rate$70122%Poppy Room w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.134ResidentPer Hour$83 $57 $26 144% Market Rate$85149%12.135Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $57 $41 170% Market Rate$100174%12.136Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $57 $11 118% Market Rate$70122%Iris Room 1 with Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.137ResidentPer Hour$83 $57 $26 144% Market Rate$85149%12.138Non-ResidentPer Hour$93 $57 $36 162% Market Rate$100174%12.139Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$63 $57 $6 110% Market Rate$70122%Iris Room 1 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.140ResidentPer Hour$73 $57 $15 126% Market Rate$75130%12.141Non-ResidentPer Hour$88 $57 $30 152% Market Rate$90157%12.142Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$58 $57 $0 100% Market Rate$60104%Iris Room 2 with Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.143ResidentPer Hour$78 $57 $21 136% Market Rate$80140%12.144Non-ResidentPer Hour$93 $57 $36 162% Market Rate$95165%12.145Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$63 $57 $6 110% Market Rate$65113%Iris Room 2 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.146ResidentPer Hour$73 $57 $16 127% Market Rate$75131%12.147Non-ResidentPer Hour$88 $57 $31 153% Market Rate$90157%12.148Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$58 $57 $1 101% Market Rate$60104%Facility Rentals - Damage / Overtime / Clean-Up Deposit (refundable if no violation)12.149High Risk EventSecurity Deposit$500 $500 $0 100% Security Depos$500100%Other Facility Rental Fees12.150Insurance (Subject to change from insurance company year to year) Per Event$150-$300 Actual CostPass Through$150-$300 (Based on Actual Cost)12.151Application Processing FeeEach $83 $106 ($23) 78% User Fee $85 81%Facility Rentals - Alcohol Surcharge:12.152ChampagneEach$26 Actual CostPass Through$3012.153Champagne & WineEach$52 Actual CostPass Through$5512.154Champagne / Wine / BeerEach$79 Actual CostPass Through$8012.155Champagne / Wine / Beer / Mixed DrinksEach$104 Actual CostPass Through$105Facility Rental - Refunds12.156Within 1 year of eventEach50% of FeePolicy50% of Fee12.157Within 60 days of eventEach0% of FeePolicy0% of FeeMiscellaneous FeesOther Services12.158Community Garden PlotPer Plot$104 $469 ($365) 22% Market Rate$11023%12.159Artist Studio FeePer Sq. Ft. $0.52 $0.78 ($0.26) 67% Market Rate $0.54 69%12.160Special Event & Recital TicketsEach$12.50 $26 ($14) 48% Market Rate $6-$1512.161Seasonal EventsSeasonalSee Flyer / Activity GuidesMarket Rate12.162Special Event Support StaffPer Hour$31 $39 ($8) 80% User Fee$3282%Tree Fees12.163Tree Planting DepositPer Tree$350 $500 ($150) 70% Security Depos$37575%12.164Protected Tree PermitEach$105 $432 ($327) 24% User Fee$12529%12.165Wholesale Tree PurchasePer Tree$500 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost12 of 12Attachment 2 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee Camp Programs Resident Non-Resident Traditional Summer Camp Per week $181.00 $186.00 $ 211.00 $217.00 Speciality Camps (Enrichment and Sports Camp)Per week $223.00 $230.00 $ 253.00 $261.00 Spring Camp Per day $36.00 $37.00 $ 41.00 $42.00 Winter Camp Per day $36.00 $37.00 $ 41.00 $42.00 Full of Fun Camp Per week $207.00 $213.00 Before and After School Recreation Programs Resident Non-Resident 5 Days / With Before School Care Per month $ 431.00 $444.00 5 Days / After School Care Only Per month $ 372.00 $383.00 3 Days / With Before School Care Per month $ 294.00 $303.00 3 Days / After Care Only Per month $ 255.00 $263.00 2 Days / With Before School Care Per month $ 196.00 $202.00 2 Days / With After Care Only Per month $ 170.00 $175.00 Before School Care Only – 5 Days $ 136.00 $140.00 Sibling Discount: Applies Only to Full-Time Before/After School, Pre-School. Children must be enrolled in the same program. For 2 or more children enrolled.15% NOTE: No fees assessed for ASES grant funded After School Programs Full Day School Age Childcare Program Per Month $ 652.00 $672.00 Pre-School Child Care Resident Non-Resident NOTE: “Big Lift” grant funded preschool fees assessed on a sliding scale, not to exceed $630/month (resident) or $704/month (non- resident) as per HUD 80% Area Median Income. 5 Days/ Full Day Per month $652.00 $672.00 $ 729.00 $751.00 5 Days/ Half Day Per month $576.00 $593.00 $ 642.00 $661.00 3 Days/ Full Day Per month $404.00 $416.00 $ 451.00 $465.00 3 Days/ Half Day Per month $357.00 $368.00 $ 397.00 $409.00 2 Days/ Full Day Per month $279.00 $287.00 $ 313.00 $322.00 2 Days/ Half Day Per month $247.00 $254.00 $ 275.00 $283.00 RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT draft v.08.12.2020 Page 1 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Late Pick-up: All Child Care Programs (for each minute after closing time) $6.25 $6.50 $ 6.25 $6.50 Processing Fee / New Enrollment $ 67.00 $69.00 $ 67.00 $69.00 For Pre-School and After-School Recreation Programs Per application $31.00 $32.00 $ 67.00 $69.00 Waiting List Fee Per application $ 31.00 $32.00 $ 31.00 $32.00 Late Payment Fe $31 $32.00 $ 31.00 $32.00 Document Retrieval Fee Retrieval of documented information, i.e. tax, custodial $31.00 $32.00 $ 31.00 $32.00 Aquatic Classes Resident Non-Resident Adult Admission Per Admission $6.00 $6.25 $ 6.00 $6.25 Adult Script 10 Admissions $36.75 $38.00 $ 58.50 $60.25 Adult Script (Senior)10 Admissions $24.75 $25.50 $ 36.00 $37.00 Child Admission Per Admission $5.00 $5.25 $ 5.00 $5.25 Child Script 10 Admissions $24.50 $25.25 $ 48.00 $49.50 Family Swim (1 to 5 swimmers)Per Family Admission $7.00 no change $ 7.00 no change Additional Swimmer(s)Per Admission $2.50 no change $ 2.50 no change Swim Lessons Resident Non-Resident Infant Water Orientation Per Hour $13.46 $14.00 Add $4.00 per session Add $15 per session Baby/Aqua Tots Per Hour $13.46 $14.00 Add $4.00 per session Add $15 per session Child Lessons (Group)Per Hour $13.46-$15.56 $14.00-$16.00 Add $4.00 per session Add $15 per session Adult Lessons (Group)Per Hour $13.46 $14.00 Add $4.00 per session Add $15 per session Semi-Private & Private Lessons Semi-Private (Child or Adult)Per Hour $20.70 $21.50 Add $4.00 per session Add $15 per session Private (Child or Adult)Per Hour $39.12 $40.25 Add $4.00 per session Add $15 per session Adult Fitness Per Hour $5.90 $6.00 Add $15 per session no change Drop in Aqua Zumba Per Hour $6.00 $6.25 $ 6.00 $6.25 draft v.08.12.2020 Page 2 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Adult Aquatic Exercise Per Hour $5.90 $6.00 Add $15 per session no change Aqua Zumba Per Hour $5.90 $6.00 Add $15 per session no change draft v.08.12.2020 Page 3 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Masters / Adult Lap Swim Daily $6.00 $6.25 $ 6.00 $6.25 Masters / Adult Lap Swim Script 10 Admissions $44.50 $46.00 $ 44.50 $46.00 Masters / Adult Lap Swim Monthly Per Session $54.50 $56.00 $ 62.00 $64.00 Masters/Adult Lap Swim 3-Month $151.50 $156.00 $ 172.00 $177.00 Masters/Adult Lap Swim Monthly (Senior)$43.50 $45.00 $ 50.00 $51.50 Masters/Adult Lap Swim 3-Month (Senior)$124.00 $128.00 $ 142.50 $147.00 Water Safety Instructor: *Includes Books & Materials Per Session $207.00 $213.00 $ 222.50 $230.00 WSI Red Cross Fee Per Session $35.00 no change $ 35.00 no change Lifeguard Training: *Includes Book & Materials Per Session $207.00 $350.00 $ 222.50 $350.00 Lifeguard Red Cross Fee Per Session $35.00 no change $ 35.00 no change Junior Lifeguard Camp Per 1 week session (5 hours per day)$109.00 $112.00 $ 124.00 $128.00 Swim Team Annual $5,775.00 $5950.00 Pool Rental Resident Non-Resident Participants 0 to 30 Per 1 ½ Hour $176.00 $181.00 $ 196.00 $202.00 Participants 31 to 60 Per 1 ½ Hour $199.00 $205.00 $ 219.00 $226.00 Participants 61 to 100 Per 1 ½ Hour $222.00 $229.00 $ 242.00 $249.00 Locker Rental Small Lockers Per Day $0.25 no change $0.25 no change Large Lockers Per Day $0.50 no change $0.50 no change Co-Sponsored Groups Resident Non-Resident Annual Renewal Fees to Co-sponsored Groups that Use City Fields / Facilities: Category I: Up to 99 Members Annual fees $ 110.00 $ 113.00 Category II: 100 – 199 Members $ 165.00 $ 170.00 Category III: 200 – 299 Members $ 270.00 $ 278.00 Category IV: 300 and Up $ 380.00 $ 391.00 Sports Programs and Facilities Resident Non-Resident Adult Softball League Per Game $ 88.00 $ 90.00 Non-Resident Surcharge Per Game $ 15.00 Adult Basketball Per Game $ 100.00 $ 103.00 Non-Resident Surcharge Per Game $ 15.00 Forfeit Fee $ 50.00 $ 52.00 Field Lights Per Hour $ 33.00 $ 34.00 $ 36.00 $ 37.00 draft v.08.12.2020 Page 4 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Field Preparation General Per preparation $32.50 $33.00 $ 53.50 $55.00 Affiliated League Per preparation $28.50 $29.00 $ 50.00 $52.00 Children -- Co-Sponsored League. There is no charge to co-sponsored groups for field reservations or preparation Open Gym Basketball & Futsal Adult Per admission $4.00 no change $ 4.00 no change Junior Per admission $3.00 no change $ 3.00 no change Open Basketball Drop-In Adults Per admission $4.00 no change $ 4.00 no change Juniors Per admission $3.00 no change $ 3.00 no change Terrabay Fitness Room Per admission $2.25 $2.50 $ 2.25 $2.50 Open Gym Script Card Adults For 10 Punches $24.00 no change $ 24.00 no change Juniors For 10 Punches $12.00 no change $ 12.00 no change Drop-in Badminton Resident Adult Per admission $6.00 no change $ 6.00 no change Junior Per admission $4.00 no change $ 4.00 no change Gymnasium Rental (School District gymnasium –additional fee is payable to SSFUSD) Per Hour $31.50 $32.50 $ 32.50 $33.50 Field Reservations Per 1-Hour Rental $27.50 $28.00 $ 36.00 $37.00 Field Permit Fee Per Permit $27.00 $28.00 Bocce Ball Permit Fee Assessed to private events not co-sponsored by the city Per Permit $80.00 $82.00 After-School Sports Program Playground Sports Clinic Per 6-Hour Session $57.00 $59.00 $ 62.00 $64.00 Playground Sports Program Per League $62.00 $64.00 $ 67.00 $69.00 Middle School Sports Resident Non-Resident Cheerleading, Football, Volleyball, Basketball, Badminton, Track & Field, Lacrosse Per Session for each sport or activity $78.00 $80.00 draft v.08.12.2020 Page 5 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Pre-School Classes Resident Non-Resident All fees are on an hourly basis, unless noted otherwise. Non-Resident Class Fees Per Session Add $15.00 no change Class Supplies Fee Sliding scale based on direct cost of class supplies. $0-$83.00 no change Animal Adventures $4.47 $4.60 Art Adventures with Parent & Me $5.11 $5.26 Claymagic $5.11 $5.26 Cooking $5.71 $5.88 Creative Dance $5.40 $5.56 Fantastic Family Fun $4.36 $4.49 Foreign Language $6.24 $6.43 Kinder Tot $5.23 $5.39 Kindergarten Readiness $5.88 $6.06 Mom’s Gym $7.81 $8.04 Move with Music $5.40 $5.56 Pre-Ballet $7.58 $7.81 Pre-Gymnastic $5.99 $6.17 Pre-Karate $6.11 $6.29 Pre-Karate (2x/week $4.31 $4.44 Pre-School Classes Resident Non-Resident Pre-School Fun $5.76 $5.93 Science Exploration $5.82 $5.99 Soccer Tots $6.17 $6.36 Storytime Adventures $4.54 $4.68 Terrific 3’s $4.54 $4.68 Toddlergarten $3.30 $3.40 Tot Tapper $5.98 $6.16 Tumbling $5.98 $6.16 Children's Classes Resident Non-Resident All fees are on an hourly basis, unless noted otherwise. Non-Resident Class Fees Per Session Add $15.00 no change Art Adventures $8.63 $8.89 Ballet $7.58 $7.81 Ballet Combo Class (3 days per week)$6.07 $6.25 draft v.08.12.2020 Page 6 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Cheerleading $4.65 $4.79 Computers $12.00 $12.36 Cooking $6.00 $6.18 Creative Movement & Dance $5.11 $5.26 Drama $5.11 $5.26 Eskrima $5.76 $5.93 Fencing $9.58 $9.87 Gymnastics $6.34 $6.53 Irish Step Dancing $6.05 $6.23 Karate (2x/week)$3.58 $3.69 Keiki Hawaiian Dance $6.00 $6.18 Kenpo Eskrima $4.65 $4.79 Knitting for Kids $6.00 $6.18 Math Fun $6.24 $6.43 Mexican Folk Dance $23.97 $24.69 Painting & Drawing $8.41 $8.66 Rhythmic Gymnastics $5.64 $5.81 Summer Mini Camps (1/2 Day)$10.34 $10.65 Tap Dance $6.00 $6.18 Watercolor 8.41 $8.66 Writing Workshop $4.83 $4.97 Adult Classes Resident Non-Resident All fees are on an hourly basis, unless noted otherwise. Non-Resident Class Fees, Add Per Session Add $15.00 no change Ballet $7.58 $7.81 Ballet Combo Class (3 days per week)$6.07 $6.25 Ballroom Dance (Tango, Salsa & Swing)$7.52 $7.75 Belly Dancing $6.58 $6.78 Cake Decorating $3.77 $3.88 Ceramics $7.58 $7.81 Color Analysis $5.40 $5.56 Computers $7.22 $7.44 Cooking $12.15 $12.51 Country Dance $7.58 $7.81 Dog Training $15.53 $16.00 draft v.08.12.2020 Page 7 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Drawing for Teens $8.41 $8.66 Dying for Crafters $3.71 $3.82 Eskrima $4.65 $4.79 Exercise $5.33 no change Exercise Drop-In $3.00-$15.00 $3.00-$15.00 Fencing $9.58 $9.87 Flower Design $4.47 $4.60 Foreign Language $7.22 $7.44 Garden Workshop $4.47 $4.60 Ikebana $4.19 $4.32 Jewelry $4.77 $4.91 Karate (1x week)$5.60 $5.77 Karate (2x week)$4.61 $4.75 Adult Classes Resident Non-Resident Kickboxing $4.99 $5.14 Knitting $4.47 $4.60 Line Dancing $4.23 $4.36 Mexican Folk Dance/Advanced $5.11 $5.26 Painting $8.41 $8.66 Polynesian Dance $6.24 $6.43 Quilting $4.23 $4.36 Sewing $6.24 $6.43 Step Aerobics $5.59 $5.76 Stretch & Tone $5.59 $5.76 Tai Chi Chuan $5.64 $5.81 Tap Dance $6.29 $6.48 Water Colors $8.41 $8.66 Yoga $6.29 $6.48 Music Classes Resident Non-Resident Guitar, Private $16.81 $17.31 Guitar, Group $7.81 $8.04 Mariachi Music $5.45 $5.61 Piano, Private $38.37 $39.52 Clarinet/Saxophone, Private $38.37 $39.52 Ukulele, Group $7.81 $8.04 draft v.08.12.2020 Page 8 Parks and Recreation Partial Fee Listing, FY 2020-2021 (excludes fees on Master Fee Schedule) PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Current Fee Proposed Fee Current Fee Proposed Fee RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Voice, Group $5.82 $5.99 Voice, Private $9.58 $9.87 Tennis Classes Resident Non-Resident Non-Resident Class Fees,Per Session Add $15.00 Private Lesson Per person, per hour $39.63 $40.82 Semi-Private Lessons Per person, per hour $28.88 $29.75 Pee Wee Tennis Per Hour $7.21 $7.43 Juniors Team Tennis $10.07 $10.37 Misc. Class Program Fees Resident Non-Resident Contractual Classes Service Fee Sliding Scale based on program cost $5 - $26 $5 - $26 Registration Processing Fee $ 2.25 no change Children’s Classes Late Pick-up Fee Per Minute $6.50 Senior Services Resident Non-Resident Adult Day Care Sliding Fee based on ability to pay Per Day $46.00-$61.00 $47.00-$62.00 Senior Meal - Senior Center Per Meal $6.00 no change Senior Transportation Donation (Suggested)Per Ride (each way)$3.50 no change Seniors Program Field Trip Fee (Out of Town)Per Ride (each way), in addition to cost of fare $6.00 no change Drop-in Senior Class Fee $5.00-$10.00 $5.00-$10.00 Other Services & Special Events Resident Non-Resident Thanksgiving Fun Run: Under 12 years old Registration Free Children 13-17 years old Registration $6.00 $6.00 18 and older Pre-Registration $21.00 $22.00 18 and older Day of Event Registration $31.00 $32.00 Halloween Haunted House Per Admission $ 6.00 no change Mail Notices Per Parcel $0.83 Credit Card Transaction fees Credit Card Transaction fees $1-$1,000.00 no fee no change no fee no change $1,000.01 and over 2.2% of the amount > $1,000.00 3% of the amount > $1,000.00 2.2% of the amount > $1,000.00 3% of the amount > $1,000.00 draft v.08.12.2020 Page 9 2019/20 Recreation Program Fee Comparisons SENIORS - Adult Day Care 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 Adult Day Care $45-$61 /day $55-$99 $40-$110 $65 SENIORS - Meal Program South San Francisco Pacifica San Bruno Daly City Senior Meal Program $6 ($0 for Adult Day Care clients) $3 suggested donation $3 suggested donation $3.50 suggested donation CLASSES South San Francisco Pacifica San Bruno Daly City Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Pre-K/Tots Classes $4.31 - $7.81 /hr add $15 /session $5.60-$7.50 add $5.00 /session N/A N/A $8.50 - $17.25 add $10 /session Ballet $7.58 /hr add $15 /session $13.63 (pre-ballet)add $5.00 /session $22.00 add $15 /session N/A N/A Tap Dance $6.00 - $6.29 /hr add $15 /session N/A N/A N/A N/A $3.00 Drop-in add $10 /session Group Tennis $10.07 /hr add $15 /session $18.75 add $5.00 /session $25.75 add $15 /session N/A N/A Guitar (private)$16.81 /hr add $15 /session N/A N/A N/A N/A $5.00 Drop-In add $10 /session Dance/Tango/Salsa $7.06 /hr add $15 /session $15.62 add $5.00 /session $5.86-$23.50 add $15 /session $5.60 add $10 /session Yoga $7.52 /hr add $15 /session $7.60-$12.43 add $5.00 /session $7.47 add $15 /session $2.00 - $5.00 add $10 /session Tai Chi $5.64 /hr add $15 /session $9.30 add $5.00 /session $11.35 add $15 /session $4.67 add $10 /session Polynesian Dance $6.24 /hr add $15 /session $14.25 add $5.00 /session N/A N/A $23.00 add $10 /session Karate $34.61-$5.60 /hr add $15 /session N/A N/A $5.11-$5.17 add $15 /session $7.50 - $8.67 add $10 /session Zumba $5.33 /hr add $15 /session $9.40 add $5.00 /session $7.18 add $15 /session $6.00 add $10 /session Sewing/Crafts $5.45 /hr add $15 /session $7.75 add $5.00 /session $10.50 add $15 /session $2.00 - $5.00 add $10 /session PICNICS RENTALS South San Francisco San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Sheltered Areas (150+ guests)$357-378 /day $372-393 $300 $375 $415 $415 Large Picnic Areas (50-100 guests)$99-140 /day $114-155 $95 $119 $175 $175 Medium Picnic Areas (30-50 guests)$87-104 /day $102-119 $85 $107 $85 $85 $73 $91 Small Picnic Areas (0-20 guests)$71 /day $86 $85 $107 $65 $65 $30-$51 $38-$64 This table compares fiscal year (FY) 2019/20 recreation fees to 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. Offerings by Like Agencies 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. In addition, Senior Focus and Rosenor House are Adult Day Health Centers and are mandated to provide more medical and therapeutic services than Adult Day Care Programs. 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. 2019/20 Fees Note: Other cities may have more and/or higher costing additional fees for items like parking, alcohol, and other service charges. Page 1 Offerings by Like Agencies2019/20 Fees INDOOR FACILITY RENTALS South San Francisco Daly City San Mateo Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Large Banquet Hall (250-300 guests)$201/hr $216/hr $200/hr $225/hr $130.00/hr $150/hr Medium Hall (150-200)$152-191/hr $167-206/hr $110/hr $135/hr $170/hr $200/hr $63/hr $79/hr Meeting Room (20-90 guests)$83-114/hr $98-129/hr $50-75 add $75 (one time)$120/hr $135/hr $40/hr $50/hr YOUTH/MIDDLE SCHOOL SPORTS South San Francisco Brisbane Millbrae San Bruno Pacifica Resident Non-Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Youth Flag Football $78 /season $73 $150 $116 $95 Youth Volleyball $78 /season $73 $150 $116 $95 Youth Basketball $78 /season $73 $150 $116 $95 Youth Track/Cross Country $78 /season $73 $150 $90 $40 ADULT SPORTS South San Francisco Brisbane San Mateo Burlingame San Bruno Resident Non-Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Adult Softball $510-$660 /team $768 ($12 per play added) $595 $840 $725 $700 AQUATICS South San Francisco Pacifica Daly City Brisbane Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Group Lessons $13.50 /hr Add $4 /session $18.00 Add $5 $17.50 $21.00 Semi-Private Lessons $20.75 /hr Add $4 /session $31.25 Add $5 $52 per kid, per hour $62 per kid, per hour Pool Rentals $117-$148 /hr $136-$161 /hour $175 per hour $90-$120 $108-$144 CHILDCARE South San Francisco Pacifica SSF Unified School District Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Licensed Preschool $652 /month $729 /month $970 /month $561 - $907 $1,001.70 /month Big Lift/sliding scale Before & Afterschool Program $431 /month $655 /month $435 /month $344 /month Note: Based on comparison of cities within the Sports Association for Northern California Recreation Agencies (SANCRA). 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: Pacifica and Daly City are the only comparable city-owned, indoor swimming facilities in the immediate area. Brisbane operates an outdoor facility year-round. Hillside Academy (SSF) Note: Many surrounding cities do not offer city-sponsored, licensed before/after school and preschool programs. Page 2 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT EVENT CALENDAR Month: August 2020 Day Date Event Time Location Saturday 01 Sunday 02 Monday 03 Tuesday 04 Wednesday 05 Thursday 06 Friday 07 Final Day of Summer Camp Saturday 08 Sunday 09 Monday 10 Fall Session Registration Begins (Tentative) Tuesday 11 Wednesday 12 SSFUSD School Begins City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Thursday 13 Friday 14 Saturday 15 Sunday 16 Monday 17 Tuesday 18 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Wednesday 19 Thursday 20 Cultural Arts Commission meeting 6:30 p.m. MSB Betty Weber or online (TBD) Friday 21 Saturday 22 Sunday 23 Monday 24 Tuesday 25 Wednesday 26 City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Thursday 27 Friday 28 Saturday 29 Sunday 30 Monday 31 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT EVENT CALENDAR Month: September 2020 Day Date Event Time Location Tuesday 01 Wednesday 02 Thursday 03 Friday 04 Saturday 05 Sunday 06 Monday 07 Labor Day/Programs Closed Tuesday 08 Fall Session Classes Begin (tentative) Wednesday 09 City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Thursday 10 Friday 11 Saturday 12 IPP Planting Event (tentative) TBD Sunday 13 Monday 14 Improving Public Places Committee meeting (tentative) 5:30 p.m. Corp. Yard conference room or online (TBD) Tuesday 15 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Wednesday 16 Thursday 17 Cultural Arts Commission meeting 6:30 p.m. MSB Betty Weber or online (TBD) Friday 18 Saturday 19 Coastal Clean Up Day Sunday 20 Monday 21 Tuesday 22 Wednesday 23 City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Thursday 24 Friday 25 Saturday 26 Sunday 27 Monday 28 Tuesday 29 Wednesday 30 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT EVENT CALENDAR Month: October 2020 Day Date Event Time Location Thursday 01 Friday 02 Saturday 03 Sunday 04 Monday 05 Improving Public Places Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. Corp. Yard conference room (TBD) Tuesday 06 Wednesday 07 Thursday 08 Friday 09 CAC Show: Day of the Dead TBD Saturday 10 CAC Show: Day of the Dead TBD Sunday 11 Monday 12 City Holiday/Programs Closed Tuesday 13 Wednesday 14 City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Thursday 15 Cultural Arts Commission meeting 6:30 p.m. MSB Betty Weber or online (TBD) Friday 16 Saturday 17 Sunday 18 Monday 19 Tuesday 20 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Wednesday 21 Thursday 22 Friday 23 Saturday 24 Sunday 25 Monday 26 Tuesday 27 Wednesday 28 City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers or online (TBD) Thursday 29 Friday 30 Saturday 31 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 2020 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Bi-Weekly Update After School Programs Supporting SSFUSD The Department has prepared the information in Attachment 1 regarding programs providing after school program support to schools in the South San Francisco Unified School District. This information is being provided at the request of Councilmember Matsumoto. It should be noted that the information represents programming prior to COVID-19. The Department and other school partners are in the process of working with the school district to determine how best to meet the anticipated childcare needs of families who will be affected by a modified school schedule. Lap Swim Hours Extended Beginning July 15 On Monday, June 29, 2020, Orange Pool began offering Lap Swim by reservation. For a $6 fee, swimmers can reserve a lane for up to a 45-minute swim. Initially, reservation times were available Monday – Friday from 5:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m., but given the success of the soft opening, the Department extended the Lap Swim hours beginning on Monday, July 13 to include Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 6:45 p.m. – 8:45 p.m. and Saturday from 7:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. The pool has been operating at full capacity every day since re-opening. The new schedule offers a total of 348 reservation slots to swimmers and the program has received a lot of positive feedback. Junior Giants Update The Junior Giants program started the third and final session of their virtual program last week. Each division (T-Ball, Minors, and Majors) has two zoom practices per week for three weeks per session. Each practice consists of exercise, show and tell, word of the week discussion and basic baseball drills with each session lasting about thirty minutes. South San Francisco’s Junior Giants AmeriCorps Ambassador this summer is Patricia Martinez. Patricia was a South San Francisco Junior Giants player nine years ago. Patricia is currently attending San Jose State University. One hundred and thirteen participants registered for the virtual season compared to around 200 players for a normal in-person season. At the end of this final session, each player will receive a trophy for their accomplishments throughout the summer which they will pick up at Terrabay Gymnasium and Recreation Center during the week of August 10. Bi-Weekly Update July 23, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Photos from COVID-19 Programs These photos show how Parks and Recreation in-person programs look and operate differently in response to COVID-19. Location: Orange Pool Swim lanes are clearly marked and tape on the ground indicates a swimmer’s personal space on deck. Spaces are marked at 6 feet apart and a sign reminds swimmers to maintain 6 feet social distancing. Only swimmers are allowed to enter the building at their reservation time. Location: Orange Park Tennis Courts During reservation hours, a park attendant is available to check patrons into their tennis court reservation and ensure that tennis court users are following park rules regarding social distancing and no gatherings. Bi-Weekly Update July 23, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Location: Orange Park Summer Camp Program (Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building) [Three photos on this page] A modified check in/out table with a clear plastic screen provides a measure of safety for parents and staff as they communicate with one another at the beginning and end of a child’s day. Since each summer camp group shares the restroom at the Fernekes Building, the restroom is sanitized after use by each group. In addition, each group has its own set of cleaning supplies (depicted left), minimizing the chance of cross contamination through commonly used items between groups. Built-in room dividers allow for the Fernekes Building to be divided into two rooms. Staff was able to further modify the room design to allow for four independent classrooms using piping and plastic drapes, an idea borrowed from the Childcare Program’s annual set up of the Haunted House at the Department’s Halloween Extravaganza. The set up at the Fernekes Building also allows for each classroom to have its own entrance, further minimizing contact between the groups. Bi-Weekly Update July 23, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Magnolia Senior Center Tax Program The Senior Services team at Magnolia Center works collaboratively with the AARP Foundation to schedule and complete taxes at no cost to seniors and community members on a reservation basis each year. This year, the team completely booked all appointment slots for taxes with 715 registrations. Prior to COVID-19, the AARP volunteers were able to complete 327 tax appointments for clients. Once AARP had to close its operations, Magnolia staff called the remaining seniors to inform them of the closure, and to provide current and new information on virtual and other options for tax preparation as it became available. This information was also included in the Senior Program’s two special edition Senior Connections newsletters. Recently, several volunteers contacted the Senior Program about continuing to provide tax preparation services. Senior Services staff worked with the volunteers to implement a drop off/pick up tax preparation program. Due to the limited time and tax deadline, staff was unable to contact all of the seniors who had appointments, but we were very excited to be able to assist 30 seniors through this program to complete their taxes. All of the 30 seniors were extremely grateful, and staff and volunteers were happy to help them with their tax preparation. (above) Tables block the ground floor entrance at Magnolia Center for a low-contact drop off/pick up tax preparation service. Clients are instructed to arrive by appointment to minimize contact with others. Attachment 1 Before and After School Childcare Providers at SSFUSD Elementary Schools – Status Prior to COVID-19 School City City of SSF SSFUSD Other* 1 Buri Buri SSF SSF Parks & Rec (130 students) SSFUSD (84 students) 2 Junipero Serra Daly City SSFUSD (28 students) City of Daly City - Rec & Library Dept. (90 Students) 3 Los Cerritos SSF SSF Parks & Rec (50 students) ASES Grant-funded; no cost to families Boys & Girls Club (84 students) Located off campus across the street 4 Martin SSF SSF Parks & Rec (50 students) ASES Grant-funded; no cost to families Boys & Girls Club (# Students TBA) Located off campus at the Paradise Valley Building (City of SSF facility) 5 Monte Verde San Bruno SSF Parks & Rec (200 students) 6 Ponderosa SSF SSF Parks & Rec (160 students) 7 Skyline Daly City SSFUSD (56 students) 8 Spruce SSF SSF Parks & Rec (30 students) ********* SSF Community Learning Center (55 Students) ASES Grant-funded; no cost to families SSFUSD Children's Center (# Students TBA - preschool & school age) 9 Sunshine Gardens SSF Boys & Girls Club (# Students TBA) Located on campus ********* Peninsula Family Services (nonprofit) (130 students - preschool and school age) * Boys & Girls Club may provide services to other schools beyond what is identified on this table. For the sake of comparison, Boys & Girls Club services were only associated with specific schools if the services were provided on or near the school campus. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: July 30, 2020 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Bi-Weekly Update Parks Division Update Concrete Planters on Airport Boulevard Parks Division, staff in partnership with Public Works staff, removed the remaining grey concrete planters located on Airport Boulevard between Lux Avenue and Armour Avenue. These planter boxes were initially installed when several trees lined Airport Boulevard at one time, but were removed due to conflicts with a large PG&E gas transmission line. Unfortunately, while well intentioned, the planters became a nuisance, as they were prone to graffiti, gathering litter, vehicle conflicts, and other forms of vandalism. These planters have been preserved for future use in more appropriate sites or park settings in South San Francisco. Sign Hill Stewards Update During the month of June, the Parks Division’s Natural Resources staff completed vegetation and sensitive species monitoring on Sign Hill. This baseline data will be particularly useful when compared to future surveys to determine the effectiveness of restoration efforts. This information will also help inform staff’s future maintenance activities. During the month of July, staff began allowing individuals and family groups to volunteer on Sign Hill in order to re-engage the community and provide valuable outdoor experiences in a safe manner during COVID-19 restrictions. During these volunteer events, staff and volunteers are following all County, State, and Federal guidance for social distancing, hygiene, and face coverings. Volunteers are asked to bring their own tools and personal protective equipment. Over this past month, Natural Resources staff have focused efforts on hand removing invasive species such as fennel, shortpod mustard, bristly oxtongue, sheep sorrel, English ivy, and ice plant. Because many plants are dormant during the summer, staff was able to expand their restoration efforts into secondary priority areas. This includes areas around the letters, far into the Liberty Park parcel, and along the Seubert and Iris Trails. A copy of staff’s most recent newsletter to volunteers is attached to this report. Bi-Weekly Update July 30, 2020 Page 2 of 3 Airport Boulevard Median Upgrades The Parks Division recently directed Brightview Landscape Maintenance staff, who performs landscape maintenance for the City, to install arbor mulch on the median of Airport Boulevard between Butler Avenue and Sister Cities Boulevard. The turf in this area had declined, and it was determined that mulching would be the most aesthetically pleasing, environmentally friendly, and fiscally sustainable option to remedy the site. These medians are currently not irrigated, hindering the establishment of landscaping here. Additionally, the arbor mulch will be greatly beneficial for the trees that grow in this area. Alta Loma Ballfield Dugouts and Terrabay Tennis Courts Fence Repairs Before the COVID-19 crisis, Parks staff had been working on modifying the gates on the dugouts at Alta Loma Park to make them safer for park users. The youth baseball leagues had raised concerns about the gates swinging open, and the locking hasp projecting outward toward the pathway, creating a potentially dangerous situation for children running by. In order to remedy this, staff directed contractors to install a drop rod that safely props the gates in either an open or closed position. At the Terrabay Recreation Center, a portion of the fence along the tennis courts had declined over the years due to high winds and corrosion. Repairs to the fence were planned in March prior to the shelter-in-place order, but work was also placed on hold shortly thereafter. Thankfully, this work was also recently approved and completed for residents that want to use these tennis courts responsibly under COVID-19 public health mandates. Building Maintenance Update HVAC Preventative Maintenance and Filter Replacement Building Maintenance staff and mechanical contractors are continuing HVAC preventative maintenance work and filter upgrades. As detailed in the June 4 City Council memorandum on this subject, staff is installing higher-grade MERV 13 HVAC filters in systems citywide to help protect staff and residents from COVID-19. Pathogens in the air are generally carried by droplets between two and five microns. While no air filter can entirely capture all particulates in this size range, MERV 13 filters can effectively trap 90% or more of particulates and aerosols in this range. The filters typically used by the City, which are typical for office and residential environments, rated MERV 10, capture between 50-80% or more of particulates in this size range. Installation of the higher grade filters will be completed in the coming weeks. Filters will be replaced on a quarterly preventative maintenance schedule. When the public health crisis ends, staff may reinstall the standard grade filters with no additional investment other than the cost of the filters. Bi-Weekly Update July 30, 2020 Page 3 of 3 Broken Window at the Grand Avenue Library Building Maintenance staff recently discovered a broken window at the Grand Avenue Library. The window was boarded up to temporarily protect the space. Police Department staff was called out to the site to create a report for potential vandalism. Once the report was completed, Building Maintenance staff removed the damaged window, had the new glass cut from a local vendor, and installed the replacement window. Recreation Division Update City Council invited to visit Summer Camp week of August 3 Councilmembers are invited to visit the Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building and meet with Childcare Program staff to learn about how staff implemented the public health guidelines for childcare programs during COVID-19 into the physical set-up and operations of summer camp. Staff is available to meet with you during the week of August 3 on Monday, Thursday, or Friday morning. Other times may be available upon request. Please contact Angela Duldulao, Recreation Manager, to arrange your visit at angela.duldulao@ssf.net or (650) 829-3827. Please note that summer camp ends on Friday, August 7, so this would be Council’s final opportunity to observe staff’s creative room set-up as well as see summer camp in action. Sign Hill StewardsSign Hill Stewards July Newsletter Dear Sign Hill Stewards, Happy Park and Recreation Month! With summer in full swing, Sign Hill is theperfect destination for a short hike with an amazing view. Late-blooming gumplants, dudleyas, and fragrant everlastings are scattered along the trails, providing much needed food for pollinators! Listen closely, and you may even hear the calls of hawks that rely on Sign Hill for habitat. In this newsletter, we share information on socially distant volunteering, communityscience opportunities, tick safety, and recent wildlife sightings! Are you interested in volunteering on Sign Hill? Do you have any Sign Hill wildlife photos that you would like to share? Email emma.lewis@ssf.net. Hope you are safe and healthy, Emma LewisEmma LewisNatural Resources SpecialistLeading the Sign Hill Habitat Restoration Project Socially Distant VolunteeringSocially Distant Volunteering Sign Hill Stewards Return The City of South San Francisco Parks Division and Sign Hill Stewards continue to keep the safety of our residents and volunteers as our first priority, whilerecognizing and balancing the need to enjoy and interact with outdoor settings. Staff are following all County, State, and CDC guidance in regards to social distancing, sanitation, and mask requirements. All volunteers are expected to alsoabide by these rules to keep all participants safe and comfortable while on thehill. Beginning in July, several volunteersBeginning in July, several volunteersreturned to Sign Hill to help staff tacklereturned to Sign Hill to help staff tackle troublesome invasive plant species!troublesome invasive plant species! Volunteers brought their own tools andPPE, volunteering as individuals or withintheir family group. Some volunteers incorporated habitat restoration into their daily hikes, removing invasivefennel along Sign Hill's trails. Others metproject staff with masks to restore habitat off trail, social distancingthroughout the workday. Are you interested in volunteering onAre you interested in volunteering onSign Hill? Email emma.lewis@ssf.net toSign Hill? Email emma.lewis@ssf.net to find a volunteer activity that matchesfind a volunteer activity that matchesyour interest and needs.your interest and needs. Become a Community Scientist!Become a Community Scientist! The SSF Parks and Recreation Department wants to learn more aboutThe SSF Parks and Recreation Department wants to learn more about the Sign Hill ecosystem.the Sign Hill ecosystem. We need help from community scientists like you We need help from community scientists like you to make 1,000 iNaturalist observations on Sign Hill!to make 1,000 iNaturalist observations on Sign Hill! iNaturalistiNaturalist is a great tool for identifying wildlife! Take photos of wildlife on yourhikes and upload them to iNaturalist viathe iNaturalist app or website. Sign Hill currently has 260 iNaturalist observations. We are ~ 1/4 of the wayto our goal of 1,000 observations! This is the perfect socially distant activity foryou and your family. You can help Sign Hill while also learning about the wildlifein your backyard! We will even featureyour iNaturalist photos in our next newsletter. Tag ms-signhillms-signhill in your posts for Sign Hillidentification help. Please remember tostay on trails when making an iNaturalist observation. View Sign Hill's iNaturalist Observations HERE Tick TalkTick Talk Ticks on Sign Hill are most active inTicks on Sign Hill are most active in the spring and summer seasons.the spring and summer seasons. Ticks are small, spider-like arthropodsthat can carry a variety of diseases. It is important to know how to protect yourself from ticks when hiking! There are over 21 species of ticks in SanMateo county, however, the three most common tick species are the Western Black-Legged Tick, the Pacific Coast Tick,and the American Dog Tick. On Sign Hill,we most commonly find the American DogTick (a vector for Tularemia and RockyMountain Spotted Fever). On Sign Hill, ticks are found in tall grassand brush. You can prevent ticks by staying on trails, wearing long sleevesand pants, and using CDCrecommended repellents containing 20-30% DEET. Always conduct a tick Always conduct a tick check on yourself, your family, and yourcheck on yourself, your family, and yourpets after hiking on Sign Hill! pets after hiking on Sign Hill! Visit thelinks on the right to learn more about ticks from the San Mateo CountyMosquito and Vector Control District. Tick Identification and Info Tick-Born Diseases Preventing Tick Bites How to Check for Ticks Nature SightingsNature Sightings Reptiles, wildflowers, and more! GopGopheher Snake (r Snake (Pituophis catenifer)Pituophis catenifer) These snakes may hiss and shake theirtail if threatened. Not to worry! Gopher snakes are nonvenmous and not harmful to humans. Photo by Jiho Kim Acmon BlAcmon Blue (ue (Icaricia acmonIcaricia acmon)) Keep an eye out for these tiny blue butterflies! They are common to openfields and even road sides, wherevertheir host plants (buckwheat & lotus) are found! CCoyote Brush (oyote Brush (Baccharis pilularisBaccharis pilularis)) This shrub is one of the most commonnative plants on Sign Hill! Coyote brush is diecious, meaning that the shrub will have only female or male flowers. This shrub is a female coyote brush. Youcan tell by the paintbrush-like flowers that will eventually become seeds, carried by wind. Elegant Piperia OElegant Piperia Orchid (rchid (PiperiaPiperia eleganselegans)) Did you know we have native orchids on Sign Hill? The orchid family is extremely diverse, due to its specializedsymbiotic relationships with pollinatorsand fungi. Visit the SSF Online Recreation Center for More Resources CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: July 30, 2020 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Information Regarding Preliminary Plans for a Licensed Full Day School-Age Childcare Program The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with an update of the Parks and Recreation Department’s (hereinafter referred to as “Department”) plans to extend its existing after school program to a licensed Full Day School-Age Childcare Program in order to serve the anticipated need for childcare as a result of South San Francisco Unified School District’s (hereinafter referred to as “District”) modified school schedule. On July 27, 2020, the District publicly confirmed that school will begin with a delayed start date on Monday, August 17, 2020 and will resume under a 100% Distance Learning Model. Please note that much of the District’s work to prepare for the 100% Distance Learning Model is happening at the same time as the Department is trying to form its Full Day Program. School principals just returned to work during the week of July 27. Department staff will be connecting with school principals and District leaders beginning the week of July 27 to plan space usage, groupings for students enrolled in the Full Day Program, and other topics related to program planning. The plans discussed in this memorandum are subject to change based on the District’s evolving plans for the new school year. Background South San Francisco Unified School District At the July 16, 2020 District School Board meeting, the School Board discussed and made decisions regarding an alternative school schedule in response to COVID-19. In short, the District is following a three-phase approach to opening schools to in-person instruction. Each Phase will last a minimum of three weeks, but could last longer. District office administration and school site leadership will examine the San Mateo County health data to determine when schools can progress into the next Phase. • Phase 1 – 100% Distance Learning – All Students • Phase 2 – Most students in 100% Distance Learning – ‘in person’ instruction/support for students that need additional support (e.g., English learners, special education, foster youth, homeless, etc.) • Phase 3 – Hybrid Learning – Students participate in ‘distance learning’ 3 days per week / 2 days per week of ‘in-person’ instruction o Under Phase 3, students will be assigned a cohort, which will indicate the days in which they should report to school for in-person instruction. Cohort A attends school on Monday/Tuesday and Cohort B attends school on Thursday/Friday. Wednesdays are reserved for asynchronous learning activities, outdoor learning, counseling, student-teacher check-ins, cleaning of facilities, teacher preparation, and weekly staff meetings. The District’s complete presentation on the topic of reopening schools is available on the District’s website at www.ssfusd.org. On July 27, 2020, District Superintendent Shawnterra Moore sent a message to families indicating that the first day of school will be delayed from August 12 to August 17, pending the formal agreement by the Teachers’ Union. This message also confirmed that school will begin in Phase 1 under a 100% Distance Learning Model. Parks and Recreation Department Childcare Program, March – August 2020 Like many other public-facing City operations, the Department cancelled all activities and closed its facilities to the public during the week of March 11, 2020 as part of the City’s response to COVID-19. What began as a short-term closure has lasted to the present day, with the Department providing many programs and services virtually, and some modified ‘in-person’ programs. The Department’s Childcare Program is one area in which ‘in-person’ services have resumed. On June 15, 2020, the Department reopened for an eight-week Summer Childcare Program for preschool and elementary school-aged children in kindergarten through 5th grade. The eight-week long program was offered in two four-week sessions. Table A, below, compares the traditional program capacity to the average number of children served during the Summer Childcare Program. Table A. Traditional Program Capacity Compared to Number of Children Served in the Summer Childcare Program Traditional Program Capacity Modified Program Avg. # Participants/Week Preschool (ages 2.5-5 years old) Up to 12 children per group Up to10 children per group 1. Little Steps Preschool 20 8 2. Siebecker Preschool 55 20 3. Westborough Preschool 59 30 TOTAL 134 84 Summer Camp (ages 5 – 12 years old) Up to 14 children per group Up to 12 children per group 4. Traditional Camp at Orange Park 110 48 5. Traditional Camp at Ponderosa 110 48 6. Specialty Camp at Terrabay* 110 48 TOTAL 330 252 * Specialty camps include camps dedicated to specific specialties such as cooking, urban farming, drama, or basketball. Under the Modified Program, only the traditional camp format was offered. Traditional camp includes a variety of educational and recreational activities for children. Much of the format and lessons learned from the Summer Childcare Program will be carried over into the Department’s fall childcare plans. Some key elements that will continue based on regulations and guidance from the State of California’s Community Care Licensing Division and the San Mateo County Public Health Department include: • Children must be cared for in stable groups of 12 or fewer school age children and 10 or fewer preschool age children (‘stable’ is defined as the same children are in the same group each day). Groups of children may not mix with each other. If more than one group is cared for at one facility, each group shall be in a separate room. • Providers (hereinafter referred to as ‘staff’) may not circulate between groups. They will remain with the same stable group of 12 or 10. • Multiple groups may share common areas (i.e., entry/exit areas, bathrooms, and outdoor play spaces) however, their use of these areas should be staggered as much as possible to minimize contact with each other. • Upon arriving at the facility, staff will greet parent and child outside the classroom to limit non-essential individuals from entering the classroom. Daily temperatures and intake/symptom questionnaires are to be performed prior to allowing entry. • Staff will check their own temperatures daily and monitor for cough or shortness of breath. They are to stay home if they are ill or have a fever. • All children who display symptoms of any illness will be sent home. While awaiting pick up, they will be separated from other children. The same procedure will be followed for staff. • Staff will perform enhanced environmental cleaning by routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces (e.g. doorknobs, light switches, countertops, faucets). Additionally, staff created a framework for responding to non-COVID-19 illnesses or COVID-19 positive cases with program participants and/or members of their households, which detail procedures for contacting families, sending sick participants or staff home for isolation, and sanitizing sites and equipment. Proposed Plan for Beginning of 2020-2021 School Year Based on information from the District at this point in time, the Department is in the process of developing a licensed Full Day Childcare Program for children in kindergarten through 5th grade in order to serve the anticipated need for childcare as a result of the District’s plan to start the school year with a 100% Distance Learning Model. This program will take place in schools and facilities in which the Department already offers Before and After School Programs. These locations are outlined in Table B, below. Table B also provides a comparison to the potential number of children served in the new Full Day Program. The Full Day Program capacity is based on the available spaces that are under the City’s control. Staff will be consulting with principals at each school site to review opportunities for using additional classroom space, depending on the need and ability for each school to dedicate the additional classrooms to sole use by the Department’s Full Day Program. Program expansion will also be dictated by available staffing and budget. Table B. Traditional Program Capacity Compared to Full Day Program Capacity School Traditional Program Capacity Full Day Program Capacity* (tentative) After School Recreation Program (ASRP) • Traditional Program: Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – AM bell time / PM bell time – 6:00 p.m. • Full Day Program: Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. (tentative schedule) Buri Buri Elementary School 130 24 Monte Verde Elementary School 200 24 Ponderosa Elementary 160 48 Spruce Elementary School 30 12 REAL (Recreation, Enrichment and Learning) After School Program** • Traditional Program: Monday – Friday, PM bell time – 6:00 p.m. • Full Day Program: Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. / optional fee-based afternoon add-on 12:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. (tentative schedule) Martin Elementary School 50 12 Los Cerritos Elementary School 50 12 TOTAL 620 132 * The Full Day Program Capacity column indicates the program capacity based on the number of available spaces at the school site known to date. This number may increase once the Department confirms its ability to continue using facilities, such as multiuse rooms that are normally used by the school during regular school hours and/or if the school is able to commit additional classroom space for the sole use of the Full Day Program. The actual number of children served will also depend on the demand as well as the Department’s ability to staff the program. ** The REAL After School Program is funded by the California Department of Education After School Education and Safety (ASES) grant program. The City and District are partners on the ASES grant, which is a grant requirement. The grant is administered by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. While the City is responsible for operating the REAL Program, the District provides use of school facilities, janitorial service, and principal and teacher time to support the program. Enrollment is primarily based on teacher/principal referrals. The ASES grant also funds the Homework Club, a program operated by the City’s Library Department at the Community Learning Center for students who attend Spruce Elementary School. Participant Survey Given that the Full Day Program will only be able to serve a small proportion of students served by the Department’s traditional Before and After School Program, staff sent out a survey on July 24, 2020 to currently enrolled participants in the City’s Before and After School Programs, as well as waitlisted participants in order to assess their need for childcare during the school year. As of July 28, 2020, the Department received 182 complete responses, with 145 of those responses coming from currently enrolled participants. Early survey results indicate that if school opens with a 100% Distance Learning Model, most families are either in need of full day childcare (35% of respondents) or they do not need childcare at all (49% of respondents). Responses in other categories include the choice of a half-day program (4%) or that the respondent was not sure how to answer at this time (12%). A copy of the e-mail cover letter with the ‘survey link’ to families is available in Attachment 1, and the complete summary of survey results is available in Attachment 2. Many of the comments on the survey relate to concerns from parents about what kind of academic support their child will receive in the Full Day Program while their child is distance learning. The Department has yet to form the details of this aspect of the program, as staff waits to learn more about how the District intends to implement its distance learning curriculum. Childcare staff will make every effort to provide support to children while distance learning, however, the Department’s childcare services are not intended to be a replacement for a traditional school environment. Another common concern from survey respondents relates to whether or not families will be able to keep their priority enrollment status for the 2021-22 school year if they choose not to enroll their child this year. The Department intends to honor priority enrollment for these families, however, without knowing the future impact of COVID-19, it cannot guarantee a child’s enrollment, particularly if group size and space restrictions still apply. Budget and Fees The Department’s budget for operating the ASRP and REAL Programs was impacted by the citywide budget reductions for the 2020-2021 fiscal year through the freezing of two full-time Recreation and Community Services Coordinator positions. The positions were vacant and the new fiscal year budget accounts for the positions being backfilled with part-time staff. The supplies and services budgets for ASRP and REAL remain in place. Staff will be working on budget exercises this week to forecast the potential budget impact of offering a Full Day Program and will share that information in a future memorandum. In developing the budget for the Full Day Program, staff will consider the following funding sources: • Genentech Donation ($50,000) – This donation is intended to support the Department’s efforts in response to COVID-19. • CARES Act Funding ($190,000) o $140,000 will be spent on staffing and supplies for the Full Day Program o $50,000 will be spent on subsidizing childcare tuition Timeline Depending on the outcome of the Department and District’s collaboration, staff anticipates starting the Full Day Program on Monday, August 24. August 7 Summer Camp Ends August 10 – 21 Full Day Program Planning and Preparation August 17 SSFUSD First Day of School (delayed from August 12) August 24 Full Day Program Begins (tentative) Preschool Given the successful operation of the preschool portion of the Summer Childcare Program, the Department’s Westborough, Siebecker, and Little Steps Preschools will carry on without interruption after August 7. Some preschoolers graduating to kindergarten will create some vacancies for new students. Any available spaces will be offered to families on the waiting list. Attachment 1 Friday, July 24, 2020 Cover letter e-mail to enrolled and waitlisted families about to responding to childcare needs survey Dear Families, You are receiving this message because you are currently re-enrolled or waitlisted for the Before and After School Program or REAL After School Program for the 2020-2021 school year. The City of South San Francisco Parks & Recreation Department is reaching out to evaluate the needs of families currently enrolled in or waitlisted for our Before and After School Program or REAL After School Program. We are exploring ways to support the anticipated need for childcare given changes in the school schedule due to COVID-19. In order help us plan a new after school/out of school program, we need your help to complete this short survey. The results of this survey will directly affect the operations of our childcare program so it is important for all families to have a voice in this process. If you have children who might have separate childcare needs (for example, different scheduling consideration due to each child's age or special needs), you may complete a separate survey for each child. Take the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/583GBSR In an effort to support families in your decision-making efforts as you consider plans for your child this school year, we are sharing some of the challenges we are working through as we develop an out-of-school program. • We may not be able to meet the childcare need for all families. Spaces may be limited due to public health regulations mandating the number of students per group as well as facility usage. We might need to implement a lottery and priority system that considers essential worker classifications. In addition, depending on the school schedule, out-of-school care program hours may be limited. These details are still to be determined. • Attention waitlisted families including preschool graduates from Westborough, Siebecker, and Little Steps Preschool: All new students who have applied for a space in the after school program have been put on the waiting list. This includes students who typically receive priority enrollment including incoming graduates of the Parks and Recreation Department’s preschool programs and siblings of students who are already enrolled with us, as well as students who applied for our program through the lottery held in April. At this time, we are unsure if we will be able to take families off of the waiting list. Once currently enrolled students have confirmed their registration, if spaces are available, we will reach out to waiting list families. We strongly encourage you to look for other childcare options at this time. Please know that we recognize the tremendous challenge imposed by COVID-19 upon all of us as we work with all of you and our school district partners to come up with a plan to support students as they start a new school year and new way of learning. We will be sure to communicate any new developments related to an out-of- school program to you as soon as we can. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 1 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 2 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 3 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 4 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 5 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 6 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 7 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 8 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 9 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 10 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 11 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 12 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 13 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 14 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 15 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 16 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 17 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 18 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 19 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 20 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 21 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 22 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 23 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 24 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 25 Data as of July 28, 2020 (Redacted of participant full names and contact information)Attachment 2 26 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: August 6, 2020 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Bi-Weekly Update Closeout Report to July Park and Recreation Month Campaign Since 1985, Americans have celebrated Park and Recreation Month in July to promote the importance parks and recreation has in health and well-being, conservation and social equity, and to recognize the hard-working professionals that make it all possible. While the current public health orders restricted some of the Department’s more traditional ways of celebrating National Park and Recreation Month with the community, the Department still managed to find creative ways to keep the community engaged. Thanks to a donation from the South San Francisco Friends of Parks and Recreation, the Department was able to once again offer the community a variety of recreation classes at no cost; the only difference being that this year’s classes were all virtual. Over 300 community members registered for these classes and were able to experience a new class, test out a new instructor, or simply familiarize themselves with the virtual class platform. From Osteo Pilates, Beginning Painting, to even Belly Dancing; there were plenty of options to choose from. Throughout the month, the Department’s social media accounts highlighted some of the amazing employees who work hard for the community every day. Community members took great interest in staff highlight posts as well as Department videos. Total engagements were up across all of the social media platforms. Facebook engagements saw an increase of over 80% from June to July. The Department closed out the month with a video thanking all of the Parks and Recreation employees for their hard work to provide safe and well-maintained parks and buildings as we well as sharing their time and talents with the community. See Attachment 1 for a copy of the presentation made at the July 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting highlighting the Department’s achievements through the Park and Recreation Month campaign. New Sculpture Garden Audio Tour In an effort to further engage the community in safe outdoor activities during the COVID-19 pandemic and as part of the Park and Recreation Month campaign, the Department introduced a series of audio tours of various sculptures located at Orange Memorial Park. Through Anchor, an audio tour app, parkgoers can click on the image of the desired sculpture and learn more about the sculpture. Visit the Department’s official Anchor App webpage at https://anchor.fm/ssf-parks-and-recreation to start listening. Kaiser Permanente Grant Supports Free Virtual Classes in August, Senior Meals In fiscal year 2019-2020, the Department received a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Benefit Programs for what had been proposed as Get Moving South San Francisco! This initiative provided up to a $50 scholarship for recreation classes to participants who either had a doctor’s prescription for Bi-Weekly Update August 6, 2020 Page 2 of 2 exercise or provided proof of low-income status. COVID-19 hit just as the initiative was starting to gain traction. Recognizing that many grantees would be unable to complete their proposed project, Kaiser Permanente allowed grantees to propose alternative uses for the grant funds that would address the impact of COVID-19. Kaiser approved the Department’s request to allocate the remaining $10,198 in grant funding as follows: • $6,198 will offset the staff cost of virtual programs that must be offered free to the community. These funds allow the Department to continue offering free virtual classes for the month of August. • $4,000 will go towards the Department’s Senior Services Food Box Program. This amount will cover the cost of 80 food boxes that will be purchased from Rocko’s Produce and delivered by the Department’s Senior Services Program. Junior Giants Giveaway The South San Francisco Junior Giants league was honored to be chosen to receive book bags and gloves for our T-Ball-aged Junior Giants players for their efforts during this summer’s Junior Giants at Home virtual program. Sports Coordinator and Junior Giants Commissioner Bill Stridbeck organized the distribution site on Wednesday, July 29, 2020 in the parking lot of the Terrabay Gymnasium and Recreation Center so that families could drive up to pick up their book bags. The Junior Giants sponsor, the Masons of California, collaborated with Raising a Reader to provide each Junior Giants player with free “Super Summer Book Bags.” The book bags contained educational materials that will help curtail the summer learning loss kids experience each year. A Mason glove, in addition to the book bag, was also provided for each player. With the help of the Masons of California volunteers, staff was able to distribute all 75 gift bags and gloves within a few hours. One more Junior Giants distribution event remains on the calendar on Monday, August 10 beginning at 10 a.m., also at Terrabay Gymnasium and Recreation Center, when staff will be distributing Junior Giants trophies to participants marking the end of this summer program. Photos from the Junior Giants distribution event on Wednesday, July 29, 2020. 1 Celebrating July as National Park and Recreation Month 2 Your LogoHereFree Virtual Classes Partnership with South San Francisco Friends of Parks and Recreation Offer free classes throughout the month: www.ssf.net/rec •Ballet •Basic Drawing •Basic Water Color •Belly Dancing •Hawaiian Hula •Osteo Pilates •Stretch & Flow •Tabata LIIT •Tai Chi Chuan YourLogoHereSocial Media Overall engagement increase during Park & Recreation Month. *Dates covering July 1-July 20 Facebook* •Engagements + 80.7% Twitter* •Engagements + 58.6% 3 Your LogoHere www.ssf.net/rec Help us celebrate! • Participate in a free virtual class• Follow us on social media and engage in our posts (like, comment, or share) South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department ssfparksandrec @SSFParksandRec South San Francisco Parks & Recreation – Government • Stay Tuned for our new audio tour of the Orange Memorial Park Sculpture Garden SSF Parks and Recreation CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: August 13, 2020 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Bi-Weekly Update Grand Avenue Breezeway In coordination with the City Manager’s Office, Parks staff designed and installed a new screen on the fencing in the breezeway between Grand Avenue and the Miller Parking Garage. Previously, banners that depicted renderings of South San Francisco were installed on this fencing, but were prone to graffiti and vandalism which required occasional replacement. Parks staff have opted for a “green wall” look using windscreen on the back side of the fence and artificial ivy on the front side of the fence. This gives the area a welcoming feel and is much easier to maintain. If this new material is vandalized, small pieces can be removed and installed instead of replacing the whole banner as necessary previously. This new design will be more cost effective and less intensive on staff time. Furthermore, when it comes time to advertise City events as has been done in the past, the signs can be installed on top of this material and will provide a nice backdrop for the message. This will make a professional and attractive setting for City messaging for downtown visitors and merchants. Staff are currently waiting for a small order to finish one last section of the fence and anticipate this to be complete in the next one to two weeks. Bi-Weekly Update August 13, 2020 Page 2 of 3 Improving Public Places On August 8, the Improving Public Places Committee held a small clean up event at Sellick Park for a core group of Improving Public Places board members. The event was held following all health order guidance including provisions for face coverings, hygiene and physical distancing, which was easily accommodated with a small group in a large open area. While the group was small, a good amount of work was accomplished with most efforts being focused on the planter areas adjacent to the parking lot. Volunteers performed light trimming, weeding, and litter pick- up. This was the first time committee members had gathered since March and was a good opportunity to safely participate in outdoor activity and better our community. Stonegate Area Cleanup Efforts Over the past few weeks, Parks staff have dedicated efforts to tidying up the corner of Chestnut Avenue and Hillside Boulevard. Work performed mainly consisted of dead shrub and tree removal, pruning of bushes and trees, weed abatement, and cleaning up of eucalyptus tree litter, as well as trash pick-up. This work was performed as a second phase of clean up in this area with the previous work happening in between units along Chestnut Avenue atop the slope. This work addressed concerns of potential fire hazards and aesthetics that had been brought up by residents adjacent to the areas. Additionally, Park staff are constructing a new “Stonegate” sign to post at the entrance to the neighborhood. Building Maintenance Update Magnolia Senior Center Interior Painting Building Maintenance staff is repairing and painting the walls in the Magnolia Center reception area. The walls have blistered and peeled over the years due to water infiltration from the skylight. The skylight leaks have previously been repaired. Staff had to construct scaffolding to reach the affected areas. As time permits, staff will also begin painting the large activity room. Bi-Weekly Update August 13, 2020 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: August 13, 2020 TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Information Regarding Preliminary Plans for the 2020-2021 School Year Childcare Program (Follow up to July 30, 2020 memorandum) Since the memorandum shared with City Council on July 30, 2020 on the topic of a Full Day School-Age Childcare Program, staff has had the opportunity to begin developing a tentative budget for the Childcare Program that includes the Full Day Elementary School-Aged Program and Preschool. This budget is subject to change pending more information from the South San Francisco Unified School District (District) as to the format for the 2020-2021 school year. Also since the July 30 memorandum, staff has had the opportunity to meet with principals at each school site in which the Department operates an after school program. Principals confirmed the Department’s assumption that at minimum, the Department would be able to operate a Full Day Program using portable classroom spaces that have historically been assigned for the Department’s sole use. Some principals indicated that additional classroom space might be available to expand the Department’s program, however, principals have been unable to commit additional facilities for the Department’s use at this time. For reference, staff is sharing the confirmed locations to date in Attachment 1. Attachment 1 also provides a comparison to the potential number of children served in the new Full Day Program. It should be noted that the Full Day Program Capacity has been changed compared to the information shared in the July 30 memorandum by increasing the number of children per group from 12 to 14. This change is being made due to a change in the State’s COVID-19 guidelines as well as childcare licensing regulations, which allow larger groupings as long as the childcare space allows 6 feet of social distancing between participants. The actual number of children served may ultimately vary depending on the size of each space. While a majority of this memo is focused on the Full Day Program, it should be noted that Preschool will continue without interruption after the official end of the Summer program period on Friday, August 7, 2020. At this time, the Department continues to work towards beginning the Full Day Program on Monday, August 24, 2020, which is a week after the first day of school. Financial Impact The Department’s budget for operating the After School Recreation Program (ASRP) and REAL After School Program were impacted by the citywide budget reductions for the 2020-2021 fiscal year through the freezing of two full-time Recreation and Community Services Coordinator positions. The positions were vacant and the new fiscal year budget accounts for the positions being backfilled with part-time staff. The supplies and services budgets for ASRP and REAL Bi-Weekly Update August 13, 2020 Page 2 of 4 remain in place, including grant funding for the REAL Program, which is explained later in this report. Attachment 2 includes a tentative budget showing potential expenditures and revenue for the Full Day Program and Preschool over the 10-month school year from August 2020 through June 2021. This budget scenario makes the following assumptions: 1. 100% Distance Learning Model for the entire 2020-2021 school year. The Department does not have enough information from the District at this time to plan a budget scenario that anticipates a transition to the Hybrid Learning Model (i.e., students attend school for two half days, and spend the remainder of the week in distance learning). Projected expenditure and revenue amounts will change in the event that the District begins operating under a Hybrid Learning Model since children will be spending some time in person at school and will need fewer hours of childcare. 2. 186 children served. The Full Day Program is projected to serve nine groups of 14 children, a total of 126 children. Preschool is projected to serve six groups of ten children, a total of 60 children. 3. Four staff members per group. Two staff members would be assigned to a morning shift, and two to an afternoon shift. Given the requirement to maintain stable groupings among staff and children, this staffing ratio allows for proper staffing coverage in the event that a staff member is sick, on vacation, or has other scheduling conflicts such as with their school schedule. 4. 10 months of program. While Preschool is a year-round program, it has been calculated within a 10-month period to match the budget projections focused on planning the Full Day Program for the school year. This also marks the natural break in which the Department shifts into summer programming and may also incorporate additional operational changes. Using these assumptions, the Department anticipates being able to operate within its existing budget. This may change given the uncertainty COVID-19 and changing public health regulations imposes on both the District and Department as both entities begin a new way of educating and serving children. Fees Fees for the Department’s traditional After School Recreation Program topped at $431 per month for before and after school care five days per week (an average of five hours of childcare per day). When considering a fee structure for the Full Day Program, staff reviewed the Department’s existing fees for full-day programs. This includes: Program Weekly Fee (FY 2019-2020) Preschool* $163 Traditional Summer Camp $181 Specialty Summer Camp $223 Recommended Full Day Program Fee $168 per week / $672 per month Bi-Weekly Update August 13, 2020 Page 3 of 4 * Preschool fees are charged on a monthly basis at $652 per month. For comparison purposes, a weekly fee assuming four weeks per month is shown in the table above. In an effort to maintain parity with the fee being charged for preschool, a program with comparable operational times, and also trying to keep Full Day Program fees as affordable as possible, staff recommends implementing a weekly fee of $168, which includes a 3% increase over the fiscal year 2019-2020 preschool fee. A 3% increase is being suggesting anticipating proposed changes to the City’s Master Fee Schedule that will be considered by City Council later this month. The monthly equivalent to this fee amounts to $672; an estimated 51% increase to families in ASRP, but also double the hours of childcare service compared to the traditional after school program. Grant-Funded REAL Program While the REAL Program is grant-funded and includes some operational and budgetary restrictions that make it different from the Department’s traditional after school program, REAL Program participants are being included in plans for the new Full Day Program. The REAL Program is funded by the California Department of Education After School Education and Safety (ASES) grant program and is free to participants. Its purpose is to expand learning beyond the school day and complement, support, and enhance daily classroom instruction. The City and District are partners on the ASES grant, which is a grant requirement. The grant is administered by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. While the City is responsible for operating the REAL Program, the District provides use of school facilities, janitorial service, and principal and teacher time to support the program. Enrollment is primarily based on teacher/principal referrals. As of this report, staff has received confirmation from ASES that the City will receive $247,695.08 in funding as expected, and that the grant requirements have been relaxed to allow for modified operations due to COVID-19. While preserving the expected grant amount is good news, it does not cover the full cost of a full day program. Based on information known to date, the Department is considering offering the REAL Program from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., with an optional fee-based add-on service to families for extended care from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Department anticipates it could charge about half of the proposed weekly rate for the Full Day Program, or $84/week. The Department has identified additional funding sources that could subsidize this cost for families in the REAL Program who need financial assistance, as noted in the CARES Act Funding section below. The ASES grant also funds the Homework Club, a program operated by the City’s Library Department at the Community Learning Center for students who attend Spruce Elementary School. CARES Act Funding and Tuition Assistance On July 22, 2020, City Council approved an allocation of $190,000 from its appropriation of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding for the purpose of an after/out of school childcare program. Funds will be spent as follows: • $140,000 to offset the cost of staffing and supplies for the Full Day Program or Preschool Bi-Weekly Update August 13, 2020 Page 4 of 4 • $50,000 for tuition assistance for low-income families in the Full Day Program or in Preschool The Department’s Childcare Program already has procedures in place that would support the granting of tuition assistance for low-income families in the Full Day Program or in Preschool. Currently, the Department verifies need based on a family’s eligibility for the District’s free or reduced lunch program. Or in the case of the Department’s Big Lift-funded Little Steps Preschool, the Department establishes user fees on a sliding scale outlined in a fee schedule provided by the California Department of Education. This fee schedule is based on State income limits provided by State of California Department of Housing and Community Development. The amount of tuition assistance granted will depend on the need. The Full Day Program registration process will include an application for tuition assistance. Based on the response, the Department could establish a flat fee waiver and/or prioritize families based on need and establish a sliding scale fee structure. In addition to CARES tuition assistance, each year approximately 20 families have contracts with outside agencies to help pay for before and after school care. The Department anticipates that these contracts likely remain in place for families who are currently eligible for them. Conclusion Preliminary budget analysis for operating a Full Day Program and Preschool during the school year, August 2020 through June 2021, indicates that the Department will be able to operate within its existing operating budget with CARES funding support. This may change given the uncertainty COVID-19 and changing public health regulations imposes on both the District and Department as both entities begin a new way of educating and serving children. The Full Day Program is tentatively scheduled to begin on Monday, August 24, 2020. This date has not yet been published to participants. Attachment 1 Traditional Program Capacity Compared to Full Day Program Capacity (updated 8/6/2020) School Traditional Program Capacity Full Day Program Capacity* (tentative) After School Recreation Program (ASRP) • Traditional Program: Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – AM bell time / PM bell time – 6:00 p.m. • Full Day Program: Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. (tentative schedule) Buri Buri Elementary School 130 28 Monte Verde Elementary School 200 28 Ponderosa Elementary 160 56** Spruce Elementary School 30 14 REAL (Recreation, Enrichment and Learning) After School Program*** • Traditional Program: Monday – Friday, PM bell time – 6:00 p.m. • Full Day Program: Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. / optional fee- based afternoon add-on 12:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. (tentative schedule) Martin Elementary School 50 14 Los Cerritos Elementary School 50 14 TOTAL 620 154 * The Full Day Program Capacity column indicates the program capacity based on the number of available spaces at the school site known to date. This number may increase once the Department confirms its ability to continue using facilities such as multiuse rooms that are normally used by the school during regular school hours and/or if the school is able to commit additional classroom space for the sole use of the Full Day Program. The actual number of children served will also depend on the demand as well as the Department’s ability to staff the program. ** Budget assumptions for Ponderosa are based on 28 children at this point in time due to program capacity, though site capacity is higher. *** The REAL After School Program is funded by the California Department of Education After School Education and Safety (ASES) grant program. The City and District are partners on the ASES grant, which is a grant requirement. The grant is administered by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. While the City is responsible for operating the REAL Program, the District provides use of school facilities, janitorial service, and principal and teacher time to support the program. Enrollment is primarily based on teacher/principal referrals. The ASES grant also funds the Homework Club, a program operated by the City’s Library Department at the Community Learning Center for students who attend Spruce Elementary School. Childcare Program Budget (August 2020 - June 2021) Assumptions: Full Day Program: 9 groups of 14 participants = 126 children served Preschool: 6 groups of 10 participants in preschool = 60 children served 2 x 6-hour shifts from 7am - 1pm, and 12:00pm - 6:00pm 4 assigned staff members per group 10 months of programming (Aug-June) EXPENDITURES PAYROLL - Part-Time Staff Position # Staff Hrs/Staff/Wk Rate Monthly 10 mos. Rec Ldr II (18 Full Day, 6 Preschool)24 30 17.86$ 51,436.80$ 514,368.00$ Rec Ldr III (18 Full Day, 12 Preschool)30 30 19.37$ 69,732.00$ 697,320.00$ TOTALS 54 121,168.80$ 1,211,688.00$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Monthly*10 mos. $ 2,200.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 5,800.00 $ 58,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 8,000.00 TOTALS 8,800.00$ 88,000.00$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 129,968.80$ 1,299,688.00$ minus CARES Act Funding $140,000 offset*115,968.80$ 1,159,688.00$ REVENUE Fee/Mo # Participants Monthly 10 mos. 672.00$ 186 124,992.00$ 1,249,920.00$ Item TOTALS * Monthly costs for One Time Start Up Expenses, 10% Contingency, and CARES Act Funding Offset have been prorated over 10 months although actual expenditures may vary month to month. $50,000 of CARES Act Funding will be allocated to providing tuition assistance to low income families. One Time Start Up Expenses - facility/furniture modifications, PPE, start up program and cleaning supplies Ongoing Cleaning & Program Expenses 10% Contingency