HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2008.03.03 CITY 0
BURL.INGAME
Sae
9
$FnTcn�uNc 6.
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Monday March 3, 2008
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m., Conference Room A
a. Impact Fee Study
1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m. —Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of February 19, 2008
5. PRESENTATION
a. Presentation of Proclamation declaring March as Red Cross Month
b. Presentation by Burlingame High School to the Youth Advisory Committee
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. (i) Adopt Ordinance adding a new section 13.36.070 to authorize preferential parking program;
(ii) Adopt Resolution setting policies and procedures for preferential parking program; (iii) Adopt
Resolution establishing fees for issuance and administration of preferential parking permits
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter
within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from
acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the
door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Adoption of Resolution urging support for the adoption of the Parks for the Future (Measure A)
at the June 3, 2008 election— Discuss/Direct/Approve
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1
10. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within
the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any
matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to
staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. NEW BUSINESS
a. Approve letter of support for Assembly Bill 2437 concerning State Water Code amendment to
Regional Water System
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Department Reports: Police, January, 2008
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours
before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose
Road, from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org.
Agendas and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT MEETING—MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2008
2
t
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY 6, 2008
i
BURLINGAME
mMuniFinancial
Corporate Office: Office Locations:
27368 Via Industria Anaheim, CA Phoenix, AZ
Suite 110 Lancaster, CA Sacramento, CA
Temecula, CA 92590 Los Angeles Regional Office Seattle, WA
Tel: (951) 587-3500 Oakland, CA
Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864)
Fax: (951) 587-3510
www.muni.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 2
PolicyConsiderations............................................................................................. 2
Methodology........................................................................................................... 3
DataCollection ...................................................................................................... 4
COMPOSITIONOF REPORT.............................................................................................. 5
FBHourly Rate ...................................................................................................... 5
Time & Materials Survey ........................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER1: CITY CLERK............................................................................................... 7
Descriptionof Services........................................................................................... 7
Analysis and Recommendations ............................................................................. 7
CHAPTER2: FINANCE.................................................................................................. 11
Description of Services......................................................................................... 11
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 11
CHAPTER3: LIBRARY.................................................................................................. 14
Descriptionof Services......................................................................................... 14
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 14
CHAPTER4: POLICE.................................................................................................... 16
Descriptionof Services......................................................................................... 16
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 16
CHAPTER5: FIRE....................................................................................................... 19
Descriptionof Services......................................................................................... 19
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 19
CHAPTER6: ENGINEERING .......................................................................................... 24
Description of Services......................................................................................... 24
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 24
CHAPTER7: PLANNING................................................................................................ 27
Description of Services ......................................................................................... 27
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 8: BUILDING INSPECTION............................................................................... 31
Descriptionof Services......................................................................................... 31
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 31
1
W MuniFnancial
MacroAnalysis..................................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 9: PARKS 8s RECREATION............................................................................... 42
Description of Services......................................................................................... 42
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 10: RENTAL& PENALTY FEES ........................................................................ 49
APPENDIX A: FB HOURLY RATE TABLES ........................................................................ 51
APPENDIX B: MASTER FEE SCHEDULE .......................................................................... 63
APPENDIX C: COST ALLOCATION PLAN........................................................................... 85
ImMuniFinancial �t
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: City Clerk- Full Cost Recovery Fee............................................................... 9
Table 2: Finance - Full Cost Recovery Fee................................................................ 12
Table 3: Library- Full Cost Recovery Fee................................................................. 15
Table 4: Police- Full Cost Recovery Fee ................................................................... 18
Table 5: Fire - Full Cost Recovery Fee...................................................................... 20
Table 6: Engineering- Full Cost Recovery Fee.......................................................... 25
Table 7: Planning- Full Cost Recovery Fee............................................................... 28
Table 8: Building Inspection- Full Cost Recovery Fee .............................................. 32
Table 9: Building Inspection - Macro Analysis.......................................................... 41
Table 10: Parks Recreation - Full Cost Recovery Fee............................................. 43
Table 11: Parks & Recreation - Macro Analysis........................................................ 48
Table 12: Rental & Penalty Fees............................................................................... 50
Table A1: City Clerk- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate .................................................. 52
Table A2: Finance - Fully Burdened Hourly Rate...................................................... 53
Table A3: Library- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate....................................................... 54
Table A4: Police - Fully Burdened Hourly Rate......................................................... 55
Table A5: Fire - Fully Burdened Hourly Rate............................................................ 56
Table A6: Engineering- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate................................................ 57
Table A7: Planning- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate .................................................... 58
Table A8: Building Inspection- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate.................................... 59
Table A9: Parks 8s Recreation- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate .................................... 60
Table A10: Water- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate....................................................... 61
Table A11: Sewer- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate....................................................... 62
Table Bl: Master Fee Schedule ................................................................................ 64
MuniFinancial iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As local governments deal with increased fiscal limitations in California, service fees, or user fees
have become an important source of revenue. A user fee is a payment made by an individual for a
requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits that individual.
The primary objective of this User Fee Study completed for the City of Burlingame, California,is to
determine the full cost to the City for providing administrative services. The City requested that this
report determine the full cost recovery fees that may be charged to users for each service to:
➢ Recover up to 100%of the total cost of rendering the service,and
➢ Identify and recommend additions or deletions to the City's existing service fee schedule.
The City can impose fees under the authority granted by California Government Code §§66000 et.
seq. ("Code'D and is required by the Code to hold at least one public hearing as part of a regularly
scheduled City Council meeting to allow for public comment on its proposed fees. The Code also
requires that the City Council adopt approved fees by either ordinance or resolution, and any fees in
excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be approved by a popular
vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is based on the fully burdened hourly rates
that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing a service. The fully burdened
hourly rates not only include personnel salary and benefits but also departmental overhead costs
(operation costs and administration personnel costs), and central services costs. The fully burdened
hourly rates Ore then multiplied to the average estimated number of hours, or portion thereof, by
position, needed to complete each service. The result is the total cost to the City for providing a
service. The total cost is also referred to as full cost recovery fee throughout this report.
The total cost for each service presented in this report is subjected to change and not finalized until
few outstanding issues are discussed with City staff.
NMuniFinancial 1
INTRODUCTION
According to the Mitigation Fee Act,public agencies can impose fees for government services when 1)
the individual's decision to use the service is voluntary and 2) the fees charged to an individual user
are reasonably related to the level of service rendered and the cost of providing that service.
Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California
Constitution, the Act, and the California Code of Regulations.According to the Act and subsequent
court rulings, fees may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service for which they are
collected unless the excess fee is approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate.
The City expressed an interest to determine whether the current fee schedule accurately reflects the
actual costs associated with providing fee-related services and if its General Fund is subsidizing
many services that benefit users. To address these issues,the City has requested an update of its fee
schedule that consists of an analysis of fee amounts to assure that support costs are included in
service costs. As a part of the update, this study reviews current fees for services and identifies the
full cost recovery fee or the total cost associated with delivering each service.
This study, however, does not analyze fees where the total cost cannot be determined through a
time and materials survey. Such fees, which are not considered user fees, include rental charges for
rooms and facilities, fines, penalty fees, or late charges. We believe that there is no requirement to
base rental charges or penalty fees on actual costs, since the City is providing no "service" and no
direct nor indirect costs are being borne by the City that go over and above normal maintenance
costs of the City's property. Cities typically rent property for special uses and charge what is deemed
a competitive market rate for such rent. We believe that the City can use this approach for fees that
are considered rental charges.We would expect that reasonableness and market comparables would
be a good basis for determining the level of rental fees as well as of other types of fees mentioned
above.
Policy Considerations
Economists and government practitioners in California advocate the use of fees to finance the actual
costs of certain public services that primarily benefit users. Fees are imposed because they recover
costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby reducing the use
of General Fund monies for such purposes.
Increasingly, local governments not only want to collect the full cost of staff labor associated with
processing and administering services that benefit users, but also wish to recover support costs.
Support costs are those costs relating to a local government's central service departments that are
properly allocable to the effective functioning of the local government's operating departments.
Appropriate support costs are generally derived from a local government's Cost Allocation Plan.
For the purpose of this study, MuniFinancial prepared a Cost Allocation Plan for the City which to
be used strictly in conjunction with this User Fee Study. As such the Cost Allocation Plan presented
hereafter is not OMB A-87 compliant and therefore cannot be used for the purposes of being
reimbursed for grant funds or for any other purposes.
As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant
element in the development of any fee schedule is that it be adopted with the flexibility to remain
current. A fee schedule that is flexible and easy to use will assist the City in its effort to ensure that
2
MMunWha x id
fees are based on current and reasonable costs for providing services. As a result,it is recommended
that the City include an annual inflation factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule that allows
the Council, by resolution, to annually increase or decrease the fees based upon published
information such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Employee Cost Index for State and Local
Government Employees. Total Compensation as released by the U.S. Department of for
Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
Shortly after January 1 of each calendar year, the City should consider determining the,percentage
change in the selected adjustment factor and applying the resulting increase or decrease to the fee
schedule by adopting the change through Council resolutions. Fees set by federal or state law are
exempt from such adjustment. It is recommended that the City perform this internal review annually
with a comprehensive review csf services and fees performed every three to five years.
Methodology
The methods of analyses for calculating fees that have been used in this report are the:
➢ Case Study Method This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with
providing a unit of service to a single user. Costs are estimated based upon interviews with
City staff regarding the time typically spent on tasks,a review of available records,and a time
and materials analysis.
➢ Time and Materials Analysis.•The time and materials analysis involves charging a fee based on
actual costs, including staff time, material costs and outside contractor costs, if applicable.
Use of the time and materials analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements vary
dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and cost requirements are
not easy to identify at the project's outset. Further, the use of the time and materials analysis
method is effective in instances when a staff member from one department assists on an
application, service or permit for another department on an as-needed basis. To use the time
and materials analysis for any of the services provided, the City may want to consider
adopting the following policy or a similar one approved by the City Attorney:
Concurrent with the submittal of an application, the project applicant shall pay deposit amounts
(when specified)and enter into an agreement to fully reimburse the City forprocessing costs The
City shall not be required to perform any work on the application prior to receipt of the deposit
and execution of the agreement. The agreement shall also include a provision for amendments to
the agreement and scope of work to cover work that was unforeseen or substantialyexceeded
time and materials estimates.
➢ Macro Cost vs Revenue Method This "top-down" approach evaluates the
appropriateness of current fees by comparing the total cost of a service category (e.g.
Field Rentals) against total revenues received. Costs are estimated by apportioning
100% of each staff member among the various service categories. This type of
analysis tells decision makers whether a category of fees is creating a revenue surplus,
deficit, or breaking even. The advantages of this approach are that it is easy to
calculate and it addresses the "reasonable" criteria in broad scope. However, it is
simplistic in nature and fails to determine if individual fees are well above or below
cost recovery level.
EMuniFhancia 3
Data Collection
This report identifies three cost layers that, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a
service. For the purpose of this study, the cost layers are defined as: direct labor,including salary and
benefits, departmental overhead costs, and City central services overhead. These layers are described
as follows:
➢ Direct Labor.The salary and benefits costs of staff hours spent directly on fee-related services
as shown on the FB Hourly Rate tables (see Appendix A).
➢ Departmental Overhead. A proportional allocation of departmental overhead costs, including
operation costs such as supplies and materials and costs associated with departmental
management staff spent on supervising other staff, to the fully burdened hourly rate as
shown on the FB Hourly Rate tables (see Appendix A).
➢ Central Services Overhead. These costs, detailed in the Cost Allocation Plan, represent services
provided by those central service departments whose primary function is to support other
City departments.
Finally, data collection included a thorough review of relevant City documentation, such as the City
General Fund budget, the current City's fee schedules, and City correspondence related to fee
services.
MuniFinancial 4
COMPOSITION OF REPORT
The services and fees for each department are addressed separately in chapters 1 through 10 of this
report. The materials included in each chapter consist of a description of the services provided by
the department,an analysis of the actual costs of each service,and a summary of the study's findings
for each department.
Included in the analysis section of each chapter is the Full Cost Recovery Fee table exhibiting:
➢ A list of services provided by the department.
➢ The result of time and materials survey conducted for each department and completed
by City staff. The purpose of time and materials survey is to determine how long it takes
City staff to render each service.
➢ The actual cost in term of staff time and materials to provide each service. This is the
result of multiplying each position's FB hourly rate by the estimated number of hours
each position spent to render a service, then summing the products. This represents the
actual cost in term of staff time and materials of providing a service. This actual cost or
total cost is also referred to as the full cost recovery fee.
➢ The City's current fee being charged for each service.
➢ A column for City staff to fill in the recommended fee for adoption for each service
based on the full cost recovery fee and on local policy and political considerations.
The Appendix A of this report contains the FB Hourly Rate tables, which illustrate the FB hourly
rates of the positions included in the study. The Appendix B of this report consist of the Master Fee
Schedule table that includes a list of services, full cost recovery fees, current fees,and recommended
fees for adoption to be completed by City staff. The Appendix C of this report contains the Cost
Allocation Plan prepared for the City to be used strictly in conjunction with this study.
FB Hourly Rate
The FB Hourly Rate table lists the FB hourly rate for each position directly involved in providing
the services included in the fee schedule for each department. FB hourly rates include the direct
annual salaries and benefits costs of each position, the allocations of departmental overhead costs
(operation costs and administration personnel costs),and the allocations of central services overhead
costs based on the position's proportional share of departmental personnel costs. These tables are
included in Appendix A.
Time & Materials Survey
Determining the amount of time each employee spends on assisting in the provision of the services
listed on the fee schedule is essential to identify the total cost of providing each service. Further,in
providing these services, a number of employees may become involved in various aspects of the
process,spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service.
Identification of these time elements relative to a particular service is most readily determined
through the completion of a time and materials survey.The"time"portion of the survey reflects the
EMun!Rnancial 5
average estimated time each department staff position spends on a given service. And the
"materials" portion of this survey refers to the costs of materials spent by the department and is
contained within the departmental overhead allocation in the FB hourly rates. The result of
multiplying the FB hourly rates by the time spent by each position reflects the actual costs of time
and materials of providing a service.
A time and materials survey provides department management with an opportunity to assess the
time requirements for each service by position and record that information onto a spreadsheet that
is used to develop the Full Cost Recovery Fee tables. The table shows the amount of time, listed in
minutes for each employee, spent in providing a specific service to the user. The table also shows
the actual costs (staff time and materials) of providing each service resulting from multiplying each
position's FB hourly rate by the time spent on the service and summing all of those results for each
service. The actual cost or total cost is also known as the full cost recovery fee as shown in the Full
Cost Recovery Fee tables and represents how much it costs the City to render a service.
6
MMunftwici�
CHAPTER 1 : CITY CLERK
Description of Services
The mission of the City Clerk's Office is to provide information regarding to City businesses and the
City Council's actions to the public in a timely manner, record and maintain City records, fulfill and
uphold legal obligations with integrity, research and disseminate information to facilitate decision-
making,and render excellent customer services.
Analysis and Recommendations
The City Clerk's Office requested that we analyze fees for the following services:
➢ Photocopies
➢ Audio/Video Copies
➢ Document Certification
➢ Filing of Circulators of an Initiative
➢ Filing of Nomination Papers
➢ Audio/Visual Set Up and Desktop Support
The Office of the City Clerk generally provides the public with copies of public records, which
includes all forms of communication related to public business. Based on the analysis conducted in
this chapter,we conclude the following:
➢ The City can charge a separate photocopy fee for materials not set at maximum limits by
State law.
Photocopy fees are governed by the California Public Records Act, (the "CPRA") which
limits the fee charged to "the actual direct cost of duplication" (Government Code Section
6256). The CPRA prohibits incorporation of document retrieval costs into the photocopy
fee. Actual photocopy costs fluctuate according to the number of copies requested, thus
adversely affecting the validity of any cost/revenue comparison. Currently, the City of
Burlingame charges ten cents ($0.15) per page for black and white, standard sized, legal
sized, or executive sized copies for such material. Other cities surveyed have decided to set
their black and white copying charge ranging from ten cents ($0.10) per page to thirty cents
($0.30) per page. The Political Reform Act requires that photocopying charges be set at
$0.10 per page for those documents relating to election materials. Since this does not include
most public records, it is reasonable for the City to charge a separate photocopy fee for all
other documents not relating to that Act.
➢ The City should adopt the City Clerk's duplicating charge citywide for all departments in
order to keep reproduction fees consistent.
➢ For fees that are regulated by the State laws, it is recommended the City comply with the
regulations.
ffiMuniFinancial 7
➢ Under the Fees Recommended by City Staff column of Table 1, please fill in your
recommended fee for adoption for each service. Generally we recommend the City to set
fee based on 100% of the cost recovery level; however, the City may want to set fee lower
than the full cost recovery fee due local policy and political considerations.
As mentioned previously in this report, the purpose of this study is to determine the full cost
recovery fee or the total cost to the City for providing a service, but it is the City's decision to
determine the fee level, up to 100.00% of the total cost, for each service based on local policy and
political considerations.
8
MMuniFinmM
Table 1:City Clerk-Full Cost Recovery Fee
T IL
O C
a n 2
Y Y Total
m m 0 m Estimated
U w ° Current Fees Fees Recommended By City Staff s
£ T a T Time
Q n E (Minutes)
Cit Clerk
FB Hourly Rate' $ 65 $ 92
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.081 $ 1.54
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application Minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
S.
1 Photocopy
2 Copy of election documents 60 60 $ 64.52 Per document New fee
3 Search and retrieve election documents that are 5 45 45 69.29 Per document New fee
years or older and are stored inside the City Hall
4 Search and retrieve election documents that are 5 45 45 69.29 Per document New fee
years or older and are stored outside the City Hall
5 Copy of other documents
6 Black&white copies(8 1/2"x 11"or 8 1/2"x 11"
or 11"x17") 1 1 1.08 Per page 0.15 Per page
7 Black&white copies(paper size other than 8 1/2"
x 11"or 8 1/2"x 11"or 11"x17") 1 1 1.08 Per page Actual cost
8 Color copies(8 1/2"x 11"or 8 1/2"x 11"or 11"x
17") 1 1 1.08 Per page Actual cost
9 Color copies(paper size other than 8 1/2"x 11 or 1 1 1.08 Per page Actual cost
81/2"x11"or 11"x17"
10 Audiotape/Video Copies(except for Police
11 Audiotape Copies
12 If blank tape supplied 10 10 15.40 Per tape,plus postage 5.25 Per tape
cost if applicable
Per tape,plus cost of
13 If no tape supplied 10 10 15.40 the tape and postage 8.50 Per tape
cost if applicable)
14 Video Copies
Search,retrieve,and send relevant data to vendor Per VHS,plus Lucas
15
for making VHS copies 30 30 60 78.46 Photo service charge of 20.00 Per VHS
$15.00
Search,retrieve,and send relevant data to vendor Per DVD,plus Lucas
1s for making DVD copies 30 30 60 78.46 Photo service charge of 25.00 Per DVD
$15.01
17 Research for documents other than election 60 60 92.39 Per hour New fee
documents
18 Document Certification 10 10 15.40 5.25 Each
This fee is set at$200
19 Filing of Circulators of an Initiative by the State of
California
20 Filing of Nomination Papers 60 60 92.39 Per candidate 25.00 Per candidate
s
Table 1: City Clerk-Full Cost Recovery Fee
T V_
� O C
� O W
is�Y� Total
y Q Estimated
E -6 5u T m T Time Full Cost Recovery Fee 4 Current Fee 5 Fees Recommended By City Staff c
v iz i5 (Minutes)
City Clerk
FB Hourly Rate' $ 65 1 $ 92
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.081 $ 1.54
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application Minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
Council Chambers Audio/Visual set-up fee(set up
21 equipment for organizations requested to use the
Council Chambers
22 AudioNisual equipment set-u 30 30 32.26 Per 1/2 hour New fee
23 Desktop Support 30 30 46.19 Per 1/2 hour New fee
' Table Al.
2 Provided by the City.
3 Total estimated time to provide each service.
°Derived by multiplying each position's FB Minute Rate by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,then summing the products. The result represents total cost to render each service.
5 FY 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule.
6 Fees recommended by City staff for adoption. To be filled by City staff.
Additional notes:
FB Hourly Rate indicates that the service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rate of the position performing the service.
Actual Cost indicates that the service is charged based on the actual costs,including labor and materials expenses,to the City to render the service.
10
CHAPTER 2: FINANCE
Description of Services
The Finance Department is responsible for budget development,investments and administration. It
also handles business licenses, processes and maintains utility bill records, manages A/P, A/R, and
payroll for all departments,and administers the Transient Occupancy Tax for hotels.
Analysis and Recommendations
The Finance Department requested that we analyze fees for the following services:
➢ Business License Processing
➢ Returned Checks
➢ Water Related Services
Other fees that fall under the Finance Department's purview include water meter rental fees,which
are not user fees,and therefore not in include in this analysis. However,they are shown in Table 12.
Based on the analysis conducted in this chapter,we conclude the following:
➢ Most fees are not sufficient to cover the total costs of services rendered.
➢ For services that the current fees are higher than the estimated total costs to the City to
render those services,it is important for policy makers to understand that any fees in excess
of the estimated total costs of rendering the services must be approved by a popular vote of
two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.
For service that requires a wide range of staff time and to be completed by different staff
each time,it is more reasonable for the City to charge actual costs of delivering the service or
to calculate fee based on the FB hourly rate of staff who rendered the service.
➢ For fees that are regulated by the State laws, it is recommended the City comply with the
regulations.
➢ Under the Fees Recommended by City Staff column of Table 2, please fill in your
recommended fee for adoption for each service. Generally we recommend the City to set
fee based on 100% of the cost recovery level; however, the City may want to set fee lower
than the full cost recovery fee due local policy and political considerations.
As mentioned previously in this report, the purpose of this study is to determine the full cost
recovery fee or the total cost to the City for providing a service, but it is the City's decision to
determine the fee level, up to 100.00% of the total cost, for each service based on local policy and
political considerations.
MMuniFinancial 11
Table 2:Finance-Full Cost Recove Fee
2 .
d161
m m N m ' Total
t1° c Y Estimated c e
-:w - O o N 7me Full Cost Recovery Fee" Current Fee Fees Recommended By City Staff
.D inH 2 3g 'Minutes)15
Finance Water
FB Hourly Rate' $ 69 $ 73 $ 76 $ 76 $ 76 $ 114 $ 118 $ 175 $ 88 $ 94 $ 98 $100
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate160 Minutes) $ 1.15 $ 1.22 $ 1.26 $1.27 $1.27 $ 1.90 $1.96 1$2.91 $1.471$1.571$1.64 $1.67
Service/Application Staff Time Spent on Each Service in Mmutea 2 Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
1 Business License
2 Process new business license application 20 11 5 25 $ 32.54 $ 35.00
3 Process renewal business license application 10 5 15 21.03 New fee
4 Duplicate business license 5 5 5.76 10.00
5 Returned Check
s 1"check This fee is set at$25 by 25.00
the Civil Code 1719
7 2nd and each subsequent checkhet Civil Cade fee is set a1719
t$335 by New fee
I F
a Water Related Services
9 Process new water application 7 7 8.83 New fee
10 Water Service Turn-On
11 8:00 AM to 3:15 PM,Mondaylhm Friday5 30 35 56.48 No Charge
12 3:16 PM to 3:30 PM,Mondaythru Friday5 30 35 56.48 20.00
13 3:31 PM to 7:59 PM,Mondaythru Friday5 45 50 81.57 60.00
14 Saturday,Sunday,Holiday5 60 65 106.66 60.00
75 Renewal Fee
If renewal fee is not If renewal fee is not
16 8:00 AM-3:15 PM-Monday thru Friday 30 30 50.17 n f 35paid w0 days of
billing,,fee will bwithin 30 e tiIIn9,fee ithinw5
times the billed amount times the billed amount.
If renewal fee is not If renewal fee is not
17 3:16 PM-3:30 PM-Mondaythru Friday 30 30 50.17 paid within billing,
ill ng,fee will be 1.5ds f 45withinpaid 0 d
.00 billing,fee will 1.5 of
5
times the billed amount times the billed amount.
If renewal fee is notIf renewal fee is not
1e 3:31 PM-4:50 PM-Monday thru Friday 45 45 75.26 billing,'fee will be 1.5billing,
30 ds f 60.00 paid 'thin fee w0 days of
times the billed amount times the billed amount.
Or 2 months estiamted
19 Water service turn-on deposit if delinquent on City 5 5 10 16.10 50.00 consumption,whichever
Water Account in previous 12 months is9 reater
20 Flow Test
Plus$44.24 for
21 5/8"through l" 5 90 90 185 286.12 materials,including 50.00
water,to run the lest
Plus$44.24 for
22 1 1/2"and 2" 5 90 90 185 286.12 materials, to 80.00
water,to run the lest
12
Table 2:Finance-Full Cost Recoven,Fee
m m �' .� Total
��`,i^' - c — C Estimated
w d 3 ; ur Time Full Cost Recovery Fee° Current Fee° Fees Recommended By City Staff°
E"E E` E` to c 3 3 (Minutes)3
o tni7 9� ILS LL O
Finance Water
FB Hourly Rate; $ 69 $ 73 $ 76 $ 76 $ 76 $ 114 $ 118 $ 175 $ 88 $ 94 $ 98 $100
FB Minute Rate V.Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $1.15 $1.22 $ 1.26 $ 1.27 $1.27 $1.90 $1.96 $2.91 $1.47 $1.57 $1.64 $1.67
Service/Application StaffTimeSpent on E Service h 5 M t Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
`-'
,*..« a"T' . ..l+xa ,
Plus$44.24 for Minimum;if over$100,
23 Over 2" 90 90 180 279.81 materials,including 100.00 cosi of testing plus 00,
water,to run the lest
24 Water Line Installation
25 5/8"b ass meter 5 5 1400 720 1 2130 3,255.75 350.00
26 3/4"service with meter 5 1400 720 2125 31249.45 Plus materials casts of 4,100.00
$1,609.62
27 1"service with meter 5 1400 720 2125 3,249.45 Plus materials costs of 4,135.00
$1,649.62
28 1 1/2"service with meter 5 1400 720 2125 3,249.45 Plus materials costs of 5,280.00
$2,394.76
29 2"service with meter 5 1400 720 2125 3,249.45 Plus material costs of 5,420.00
$2,524.76
30 If larger than 2"or a length of more than 60 feet Actual labor and Cost plus 15
31 Meter Upgrade materials costs
32 To 3/4"meter 120 120 188.65 Plusmeter$32 for costa 223.00
33 To 1"meter 5 120 125 198.44 Plus$162 for a new 254.00
meter(material cost)
34 Work on City Water System 60.00 Permit;$1,500 bond 60.00 Perm B;$1,500 band or
deposit
35 Maintenance of Water in Fire Protection System 1.00 Per month per inch of Per month per inch of pip diameler,with$2 1.00 pip diameter,with$2
minimum charge minimum charge
Tables A2 and A10.
Provided by the City.
'Total estimated time to provide each service.
"Derived by multiplying each position's FB Minute Rate by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,then summing the products.The result represents total cost to render each service.
s FY 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule.
e Fees recommended by City staff for adoption.To be filled by City staff.
Additional notes:
FB Hourly Rate indicates that the service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rale of the position performing the service.
Actual Cost indicates that the service is charged based on the actual costs,including labor and materials expenses,to the City to render the service.
13
CHAPTER 3: LIBRARY
Description of Services
The mission of Burlingame Public Library is to serve all members of the community by providing
and promoting free and equal access to resources and information in a professional and welcoming
environment.
Analysis and Recommendations
The Library requested that we analyze fees for the following services:
➢ Black&white copies and printouts from Internet or Database
➢ Color copies and printouts from Internet or Database
➢ Outside System Book Loan
For administrative purposes, fees for the following services are shown in Table 3; however,
they were established by PLS Consortium.
■ Reserve or hold materials charge
■ Overdue fee for adult
■ Overdue fee for child
■ Lost book replacement
■ Lost card replacement
Other fees that fall under the Library's purview include room rental, audio/video usage and support
fees are not user fees, and therefore not in include in this analysis. However, they are shown in
Table 12.
Based on the analysis conducted in this chapter,we conclude the following:
Fee for Outside System Book Loan service is to be determined by the lending library.
➢ For services supervised by PLS Consortium, we recommend the City to adopt the most
recent fees that were set by PLS Consortium.
➢ Under the Fees Recommended by City Staff column of Table 3, please fill in your
recommended fee for adoption for each service. Generally we recommend the City to set
fee based on 100% of the cost recovery level; however, the City may want to set fee lower
than the full cost recovery fee due local policy and political considerations.
As mentioned previously in this report, the purpose of this study is to determine the full cost
recovery fee or the total cost to the City for providing a service, but it is the City's decision to
determine the fee level, up to 100.00% of the total cost, for each service based on local policy and
political considerations.
14
MuniFinandal
Table 3:Libra -Full Cost Recove Fee
8.9
L - O
«R 0 Obi e LL W O
>6,> ��a __ 3 5� 2 m Total
a ¢ c a .P w `m v.°e h in N Estimated
v Time Full Cost Recovery Fee Current Fees Fees Recommended By City Staff*
L a C out 'c C a g n 12-x a` Z' (Minutes)s
e3 m W - -N -im Qs U
Libra
FB Hourfy Rate $ 65 E 69T$ 70 E74 E 79 E 80 $ 84 E 103 $ 115 $ 122 $ 164
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) E 1.09 E 1.15 s 1.17 $ 1.24 $ 1.31 $ 1.331$ 1.401$ 1,711$ 1.911 E 2.G41 E 2.73
Service/A lieabon Staff Time Spent on Each Service in Minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
:..� fcelA .,375,ao, <,. i .a 5. - .7"; Fe .v*
1 Black a white copies 8 pnntouls from Intemet or 1 1 s 1.08 Per page $ 0.15 Per page
Database
2 Color copies 8 printouts from Internet or Database 1 1 1.08 Per page New fee
3 Outside system book loan Cost charged by the Cost charged by the
lending
4 PLS Consortium Controlled Fees
library lending library
5 Reserve or hold materials charge 0.75 Per item 0.75 Per item
6 Overdue fee for adult 0.25 Per item 0.25 Per item
7 Overdue fee for child 0.15 Per item 0.15 Per item
e Maximum tee 6.00 Per book 6.00 Per book
Per item plus per item plus
s Lost book replacement 5.00 replacement cost of the 5.00 replacement cost of the
10 Lost card replacement tem item
1.00 Per replacement 1.00
Table A3.
Provided by the City.
Total estimated time to provide each service.
4 Derived by multiplying each position's FB Minute Rate by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,then summing the products.The result represents total cost to render each service
s FY 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule
s Fees recommended by City staff for adoption.To be filled by City staff.
Additional notes:
FB Hourly Rafe indicates that the service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rale of the position performing the service.
15
CHAPTER 4: POLICE
Description of Services
The Police Department is dedicated to provide the highest level of police services to all individuals
living in or visiting the City of Burlingame, communicate to the citizens, and encourage community
involvement in various programs.
Analysis and Recommendations
The Police Department requested that we analyze fees for the following services:
➢ Police Reports ➢ Massage Practitioner Permits
Finger Rolling ➢ Taxi Operator Permits
➢ Audio Tapes ➢ Taxi Driver Permits
➢ Video Tapes/CDs/DVDs ➢ Taxi Cab Inspection
➢ Photographs ➢ Special Events/Street Closing
➢ Clearance Letters ➢ Booking Fees
➢ Security Service ➢ Bicycle License
➢ Overnight Parking Permits ➢ Solicitors
➢ Alarm Permits ➢ Concealed Weapon
Amusement/Entertainment Permits ➢ Unruly Gathering
➢ Massage Operator Permits
Other fees that fall under the Police Department's purview include vehicle release, repossessed
vehicle, DUI related, and false alarm fees are not user fees, and therefore not in include in this
analysis. However,they are shown in Table 12.
Based on our analysis,we conclude the following:
➢ Most fees are not sufficient to cover the total costs of services rendered.
➢ For fees that are regulated by the State laws or other agencies, it is recommended the City
comply with the regulations.
➢ For services that the current fees are higher than the estimated total costs to the City to
render those services,it is important for policy makers to understand that any fees in excess
of the estimated total costs of rendering the services must be approved by a popular vote of
two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.
➢ For service that requires a wide range of staff time and to be completed by different staff
each time,it is more reasonable for the City to charge actual costs of delivering the service or
to calculate fee based on the FB hourly rate of staff who rendered the service.
16
EMuniRnancial
➢ Under the Fees Recommended by City Staff column of Table 4, please fill in your
recommended fee for adoption for each service. Generally we recommend the City to set
fee based on 100% of the cost recovery level; however, the City may want to set fee lower
than the full cost recovery fee due local policy and political considerations.
As mentioned previously in this report, the purpose of this study is to determine the full cost
recovery fee or the total cost to the City for providing a service, but it is the City's decision to
determine the fee level, up to 100.00% of the total cost, for each service based on local policy and
political considerations.
MMuniFinancial 17
Table 4:Police-Full Cost Recovery Fee
Total
o U 2,. ~ o f Estimated
m U U g o w c 'c $r �$' a o Tlma Full Cost Recovery Fee' Curren.Fee° Fees Recommended By City Staff'
3 u E`€ 8 8 E c`d (Minutes)
I* rTi UO Sy a° a o. ri �F- u� tuo
Po9oe Finance
FB Hourly Rate° E 60 E 8B E 72 E 75 E 118 E 135 E 168 E 170 $ 89 E 73 E 78 $ 76 $ 76 $114 E 116 E 175
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly QW60 Minutes $1.00 E 1.14 $7.20 $125 $1.97 E 2.25 $2.76 2.831 E 1.151$1.22 1$1.26 1$1.27 1E 1211$1.901$1.96l$2.91
Service/Application Staff Time Spent on Each Semles In Minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
1 Police repods 15 5 20 $ 21 31 Per report plus $ 1.00 Per page:maximum
materials fee$16
x Fln er int rdlin 30 30 30.10 20.00 _
a Audio to a 20 20 45.03 28.00
4 Videotapes,CDs,DVDs 60 60 75.07 43.00
5 Photo a 60 60 75.07 Per roll 29.00 Per roll
6 Geerance Letter 15 15 15.05 12.00
1.5 fimes the FB hourly
rate of either Police
Officer or Pdica
7 Security service(outside details) Sergeant depending on 88.00 Per hour
who provides the
service,minimum 4
hours
a Permits
s
OwImight pring 20 15 1 35 53.8410.00
Fee inductee 2 telae Fee includes 2 False
to Alarm 60 5 10 75 141.98 alarm cells without 49.50 alarm calls without
charge charge
11 Amusement/Entertainment 5 30 5 3 94.85 108.00
12 Message operator
13 New 'cation 5 120 15 3 30 173 359.62 250.00
14 Sale or tra r 120 10 3 133 306.27 150.00
1a Renewal 60 10 3 10 83 182.69 100.00
to Message practitioner P. P
17 Newa ication 5 120 15 3 20 163 348.11 250.00
to Renewal 60 15 3 10 88 196.48 100.00
1e Taxi operator
20 Newe ication 15 20 35 38.08 150.00
21 Renewal 15 1 5 20 20.81 75.00
22 Taxi driver
23 Newapplication 15 15 10 40 60.34 150.00
24 Renewal 15 15 5 35 54.58 75.00
25 Taxi Cab Inspection 30 67.55 New fee
For processing
application and Per application fee
planning the event,If qua$340 per day City
26 Special eventWStreet dosing 120 120 339.64 applicable,etlditionsl 115.00 facility fee plus$88 per
fee is charged base on hour Police Officer for
hourly rate for security traffic control
service and equipment
usage
27 Booltln fees As eel Co Aa set County
2B Bi dellfbnee No d1B! No charge
2e So6dtors 120 5 125 275,85 Fa investigation plus . For invea89ation plus
fi 'ntin fee h e intin fees
oro Concealed weapon 60 20 5 85 204.42 For investigation 52.00 For investianon
Cost of hours of Officer
m Unruly gathering
5 30 5 30 70 161.20 Per hour nee nee
�EEd
'Tables A2 and A4.
'Provided by the City.
'Total estimated time to provide each service.
'Derived by multiptying each position's FB Minute Rate by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,then summing the products.The result represents total cost to render each service.
s FY 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule
°Fees recommended by Gty staff for adoption.To be filled by City staff.
Additional nates:
FS Horsy Rate indicates that the service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rate of the position performing the service.
Adual Cost indicates that the service is charged based on the actual costs,including labor and materials expenses,to the City to render the service.
18
CHAPTER 5: FIRE
Description of Services
The primary responsibility of Fire Department is to protect lives and property by providing an
adequate level of fire protection and medical emergency response to the residents. .Programs and
services provided include fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical response, training,
disaster preparedness,and administration.
Analysis and Recommendations
The Fire Department requested that we analyze fees for the following services:
➢ Care Facilities Inspection
➢ Construction Charges
➢ Miscellaneous Charges and Permits
➢ General Permits
Based on our analysis,we conclude the following:
➢ For fees that are regulated by the State laws, it is recommended the City comply with the
regulations.
➢ Most fees are not sufficient to cover the total costs of services rendered.
➢ For service that requires a wide range of staff time and to be completed by different staff
each time,it is more reasonable for the City to charge actual costs of delivering the service or
to calculate fee based on the FB Hourly Rate of staff who rendered the service.
➢ For services that the current fees are higher than the estimated total costs to the City to
render those services,it is important for policy makers to understand that any fees in excess
of the estimated total costs of rendering the services must be approved by a popular vote of
two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.
➢ Under the Fees Recommended by City Staff column of Table 5, please fill in your
recommended fee for adoption for each service. Generally we recommend the City to set
fee based on 100% of the cost recovery level; however, the City may want to set fee lower
than the full cost recovery fee due local policy and political considerations.
As mentioned previously in this report, the purpose of this study is to determine the full cost
recovery fee or the total cost to the City for providing a service, but it is the City's decision to
determine the fee level, up to 100.00% of the total cost, for each service based on local policy and
political considerations.
MMunFWuincW 19
Table 5:Fire-Full Cost Recovery Fee
oe
_
U� t5
U _ = Total
n w - Estimated
E _ - Time Full Cost Recovery Fee° Current Fee` Fees Recommended By City Staffs
.E m _ _ U U (Minutes)3
fn IL Q O V_ E IIL N IT IL 1 ❑ 1 ❑ m IL IL
Fire
FB Hourly Rate' $ 47 $ 82 1$ 119 $ 124 $ 125 $ 130 $ 134 $ 139 1$ 143 1$ 154 $162 $169
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $0.781$1.371$1.981$2.07 Ii $2.081$2.171$2.231$2.31 1$2.351$2.511$2.70 $2.81
Service/Application Staff Time Spent on Each Service in MinutesFee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
..:. •BT;;r .€,.,�„ r.. :,.. , ...' . ,.^.:.v.,. . �.•'.ti' .. 5"T°?". .. .. ,.-.;n,;�*,4:-::. �,+ie��4,�. r, .r.,ie .+7m ".t.'�..F`, '. '.;
,ua
1 Care Facilities Inspection
2Pre-ins ection of licensed communitycare facility
3 25 persons or less - $ 50.00 Fee is set by State $ 50.00
Statue
4 Over 25 persons 100 00 Fee is set by State 100.00
p Statue
5 Residential care facilities 233.00 Fee is set by State 233.00
Statue
a Large family day care 10 5 1 60 75 138.72 117.00
7 Hospital/institution 10 5 960 975 1,999.77 387.00
8 Skilled Nursing Facilities 10 5 240 255 510.93 New fee
9 Re-inspection
10 Second 10 5 30 45 76.68 Per re-inspection 70.00 Per inspection
11 Third and each subsequent re-Inspection 15 10 45 70 118.44 Per re-Inspection 106.00 Per ins ection
12 Construction Charges
Per hour charged for
13 Building or planning plan check 30 30 60 146.41 administrative service, 117.00 Per hour
plus actual consultant
costs
Per hour charged for
administrative service
14 Expedite building or planning plan check 30 30 60 146.41 and minimum 2 hours; 216.00 Per hour
plus actual consultant
costs
15 Consultation and planning 5 60 65 172.66 Per hour 154.00 Per hour
16 Fire alarms stems
17 Monitoring system 30 60 90 147.52 58.00
18 Manuals stem 30 60 90 147.52 117.00
19 Automatics stem 30 120 150 271.59 233.00
20 Combination s stem 30 180 210 395.66 281.00
21 COMM
uishin s stem 30 90 120 209.55 233.00
22 Stand system 30 120 150 271.59 233.00
23 Stora a lank above or below ground) 30 60 90 147.52 233.00
24 S rinklers stems
Flat fee including 2
inspections without
charge;for the third and per permit;(note:phase
25 One or two family dwelling fire sprinkler system(NEPA 30 180 210 395.66 each subsequent 350.00 inspections billed at$117
13D) inspection,fee is based per hour
on the FB hourly rate of p )
staff who renders the
service
26 Fire pump 30 1 60 90 i 147.52 117.00
20
Table 5:Fire-Full Cost Recovery Fee
8 a4
d
U2� rn �rc v
Total
12y
P
U Estimated
~E d v 5. 1 N o v C Time Full Cost Recovery Fee 4 Current Fee° Fees Recommended By City Staff°
E N E v c .2 r m v (Minutes)a
NIL O E IL ir N IL IL O O m LL LL.
Fire
FB Hourly Rate' $ 47 1$ 82 Is 11911241 124 $ 125 $ 130 E 134 S 139 S 143 E 154 $182 E 169
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $0.78 $1.37 $1.98 $2.07 $
2.08 $2.17 $2.23 E 2.31 $2.381$2.571$2.701 E 2.81
Service/Application Staff Time Spent on Each Service In Minutes r Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
Flat fee including 3
inspections without
Residential or commercial fire sprinkler system(NFPA charge if welding
13 or 13R) incklded;for the third Per permit;(note:phase
27 30 300 330 643.79 and each subsequent 467.00 inspections billed at$117
Permit-Single Story(incl.T.I.) inspection,fee is based per hour)
Permit-Multi Story on the FB hourly rate of
staff who renders the
service
2e Fire service line inspectioLninspection
30 60 90 147.52 117.00
29 Afiemate means of protection review 80 80 188.75 Per hour 154.00 Per hour
3o Miscellaneous Charges and Permits
Fee is only applicable to
31 Vegetation management inspection 30 120 150 271.59 the plus 20%of contractor'sTown of 233.00 fee
32 Change of use inspection(usually triggered by new Hifsborou h
business license) 10 5 60 75 144.92 64.00
33 Standby Service
34 Firefighter 60 60 119 o8 Per hour,minimum 3 110.00 Per hour;minimum 3
hours hours
Fire Captain 60 60 133.74 Per hour,minimum 3 New tee
hours
Battalion Chief 60 60 154.16 Per hour,minimum 3 New fee
hours
Per hour,minimum 3
35 Engine Company(Engine Company Includes 1 Fire 180 60 hours;plus fire per hour;minimum 3
Captain and 3 Firefighters) 240 490.95 apparatus cost of 318.00 hours
$1.232 per day,as set
by the Slate
36 Photographs from investigations Actual costCost of re roduction
37 Fire hydrant flow tests 15 80 75 135.79 Per h drant 117.00 Per h Brant
m Work without a construction permit Double permit fees Double the permit fees
FB hourly rate of staff
who renders the Cost depends on the
39 Emergency response costs for DUI service;plus fire
hourly rale of staff that
apparatus cost of
$1,232 per day,as set renders the service
by the Stale
FB hourly rate of stall
who renders the Cost depends on the
40 Hazardous materials clean-up/response service;plus fire hourly rale Of stall that
apparatus cost of renders the service plus
51,232 per day,as set actual equipment and
by the State materials costs
21
Table 5:Fire-Full Cost Recovery Fee
r a
.IE
° oIX
U
- U _ = Total
n w - - m u m Estimated
E - u_ O - l2 Time Full Cost Recovery Fee' Current Fee` Fees Recommended By City Staff`
U (Minutes)3
N ll Q O IL iL iT NIL LL O O m IL IL
Fire
FB Hourly Rate' $ 47 $ 82 $ 119 $ 124 $ 125 $ 130 $ 134 $ 139 $ 143 $ 154 $162 $169
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $0.78 $ 1.37 $1.98 $2.07 $2.08 $2.17 $2.23 $2.31 $2.38 $2.57 $2.70 1$2.81
Service/Application Staff SL Time Spent on Each Service in M Fee of Minutes
est Fe
a Notes Fee Notes
41 General Permits
42 Christmas tree lot 10 5 60 75 138.72 73.00
43 Aerosol products 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
44 Apartments,Hotels,and Motels
45 10 units or less 10 5 5 60 80 158.73 $5.00
46 11-25 units 10 5 5 75 95 192.16 104.00
47 26 units or more 10 5 5 90 110 225.60 141.00
48 Battery system 10 5 195 210 417.88 187.00
49 Carnivals and fairs 10 5 180 1 195 1 386.86 338.00
so Combustible Ober storage 10 5 105 120 231.77 136.00
51 Combustible material storage 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
52 Compressed asses 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
53 Commercial mbbish-handling operation 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
54 C o ens 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
55 D clean lams 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
ss Dust-roducin o eralions 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
57 Ex osives or blastin a enls 10 5 195 210 417.88 237.00
5e Fire hydrants and water control valves 15 105 120 228.85 120.00
59 Fireworks 10 5 195 210 417.88 196.00
so Flammable or combustible liquids 10 5 195 210 417.88 388.00
61 Hazardous materials 10 5 195 210 417.88 489.00
62 Hi h-lied combustible Stora e
63 20,000 s.are feet or less 10 5 195 210 417.88 276.00
64 Over 20,000 square feet 10 5 255 270 541.95 489.00
65 Hot-work operations 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
ss Liquefied etrolerim asses 10 5 195 210 417.88 187.00
67 Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly 10 5 195 210 417.88 187.00
buildings
sa Live audiences 10 5 195 210 417.88 187.00
s5 Lumber arcs storin in excess of 100,000 board feet 10 5 150 165 324.82 288.00
70 Ma nesium workin 10 5 105 120 231.77 162.00
71 Exhibits&Trade Shows
72 Dis la booth 10 5 105 120 231.77 170.00
73 For assembl with o en flame 10 5 105 120 231.77 170.00
74 Display fuel powered a ui ment 10 5 105 120 231.77 170.00
75 Motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations 10 5 80 95 192.97 302.00
76 Open burning
10 5 105 120 231.77 117.00
77 Or anic coatin 10 5 105 120 231.77 187.00
78 Oven,incustrial bakingand drying 10 5 80 95 192.97 162.00
79 Parade floats 10 5 105 120 231.77 170.00
80 Places of assembl 10 5 180 195 405.47 363.00
81 Production facilities 10 5 180 195 386.86 338.00
8
2 Pyrotechnical andspecial effects material 10 5 195 210 417.88 302.00
83 Radioactive materials 10 5 105 120 231.77 136.00
84 Refrigeration equipment 10 5 150 165 324.82 288.00
85 Re air arae 10 5 105 120 242.63 187.00
22
Table 5:Fire-Full Cost Recovery Fee
o_ c
1N o
5 r
_ T'ti U v Total
o
ou U n U U Estimated
~E - u- — Time Full Cost Recovery Fee' Current Fee` Fees Recommended By City Staffa
o .E -S2 v = W C (Minutest'
OIL Q O Il IL IL N IL LL O O m 11 IL
Fire
FB Hourly Rate $ 47 $ 82 $ 1191$ 124 $ 125 $ 130 $ 134 $ 139 $ 143 $ 154 $162 $169
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutest $0.78 $1.37 $1.95 $2.07 $2.08 $2.17 $2.23 S 2.31 $2.38 $2.57 $2.70 $2.81
Service/Application Staff Time Spent on Each Service in Minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
86 Spraying and dipping 10 5 105 120 242.63 187.00
87 Tents,canopies,and temporary membrance structures 15 165 180 352.91 196.00
ea Tire storage 10 5 105 120 231.77 162.00
es Wood products 10 5 105 120 231.77 182.00
so Amusement Buildings 10 5 105 120 242.63 New fee
e1 Aviation Facilities 10 5 195 210 438.04 New fee
Table A5.
'Provided by the City.
Total estimated time to provide each service.
°Derived by multiplying each position's FB Minute Rate by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,then summing the products.The result represents total cost to render each service.
5FY 2007.08 Master Fee Schedule.
c Fees recommended by City staff for adoption.To be filled by City staff.
Additional notes:
FB Hourly Rate indicates that the service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rate of the position performing the service.
23
CHAPTER 6: ENGINEERING
Description of Services
The primary responsibilities of Engineering are to develop long and short term operation and capital
improvement budgets, oversee the City's infrastructure, review and approve plans submitted by
private developers regarding connections to the City's utilities or concerning street openings, and
work with third agencies.
Analysis and Recommendations
The Engineering requested that we analyze fees for the following services:
➢ Encroachment Permits
➢ Special Encroachment Permits
➢ Demolition Permits
➢ Address Change
➢ Building Moving
➢ Subdivision Maps
➢ Zoning
➢ Illegal Sign Removal
Based on our analysis,we conclude the following:
➢ Most fees are not sufficient to cover the total costs of services rendered.
➢ For service that requires a wide range of staff time and to be completed by different staff
each time,it is more reasonable for the City to charge actual costs of delivering the service or
to calculate fee based on the FB Hourly Rate of staff who rendered the service.
➢ For services that the current fees are higher than the estimated total costs to the City to
render those services,it is important for policy makers to understand that any fees in excess
of the estimated total costs of rendering the services must be approved by a popular vote of
two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.
➢ Under the Fees Recommended by City Staff column of Table 6, please fill in your
recommended fee for adoption for each service. Generally we recommend the City to set
fee based on 100% of the cost recovery level; however, the City may want to set fee lower
than the full cost recovery fee due local policy and political considerations.
As mentioned previously in this report, the purpose of this study is to determine the full cost
recovery fee or the total cost to the City for providing a service, but it is the City's decision to
determine the fee level, up to 100.00% of the total cost, for each service based on local policy and
political considerations.
MuniFinancial 24
u � WZ-��
N
s s y y m �m o"° °079ma,$ n�mss mss '= ;��a s a d ye M
Q
3 3 3.
—m
3 8. 8 <° mg = ozm na.m �3 e- a 'I- 8 0 0
3 _ S. 2.
oa$ 3 m
3 0
� ° s
m �o
A
0
n
8 u 8 amimatrab�e secretary °
�u m
`dr « Secretary rp
I Id
Engineering Technician It
$' $ Public Works Inspector
Senior Public Works
Inspector
on
Project Manager/GIS
am Coordinator
N
Assistant Engineer
g _ samdate Engineer(0.75
Full-Toe Equivalent)
Program Manager(0.5
Full-Time Equivalent)
nior Engineer
8 u
Assistant Public Worse
rm Director
Fire Marshall
mLaborer
ater Mairdenance
g e Leadworker
g $ �« afar Supervlaor
�m
Laborer
Maintenance Worker
—»m
o Pump Station Leadworker
Street and Sewer
Lea-*orker
Street and Sewer
$'m Supervisor
3 p
8 8 8 s s 8
a�sasQ _a.s�ma _mom a �s J ms s ��
«dim s4imm�o� gy«y??�
2q ga.-3•��. �7y�' ngS3�aS C, 9'$ — ' 8 k
01
s a 3 L z v
$yy 8 $ $ 8 $ $ $ 8 88888888 8 $ $ 8 $ $8 8 8888
3E $ «S
i ��
i $ S
8 8 8 8
i v 3
m � �
m
S
a
Table 6:Engineering-Full Cost RecoveFee
s _ or _
Total
z 3 9 s E 6 E E w a Y w m w Y F$ E Tlp�iwatad Full Cost Recovery Fee" Current Fee° Fees Redommentled By City sten°
.E - s 6 S o o n m�_ - $ _; s $ E a; e 8 IMfpmeq 3
au o 99 3 3
c En Itteadn Flre Wale, Baser
FS Hourly Rat.'$ 75 $ 75 $ 88 $ 9fi $ 108 E 115 E 1271$ 127 E 134 E 1531$ 182 E 169 E 88 E 98 E 118 E 781$ 91 E 1021$102 E 119
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Be,.—Minutes) $1.25 E 1.25 E 1.46 E 1.60 E 1.77 $1.92 E 2.12 E 2.12 $2.23 E 2.55 E 3.03 E 2.111 8 1.46 $1.64 $1.9fi E 1.30 I E 1.70I E 1.71 E 1.98
SerseelApplicatio -ff Tim.Spent on Each Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
Plus$500 for each
additional unit m excess o/ Plus$265 for each unit
37 Condominium map 60 600 180 60 900 2.000.82 1 765.0
4..it.,plus actual over 4
consultant cost
38 Zoning Fees To Be Collected By Planning
Department
39 Design
40 Single-Farmlyda,elfirig 80 30 90 203.72 97.00
Actual consultant chat and Plus$350 if effeet.cepe
n P11 other coat of City staff lime 1 '�installation involved
42 Environmental review
a Traffic a parking studies Actual consuitaritcost an0 148
coat of City staff time
a Creek encbsures 30 60 120 240 W 510 1,181.95 625.00
46 Dreina a and uuRias 30 60 120 120 330 693.85 148.00
46 Illeal sin removal 30 30 60 96.56 52.00 Per sign
1 Tables A5,A6,A70,and All.
2 Provided by the City.
3 Total estimated time to provide each service.
"Derived by mulfiplying each posdiun's FB Minute Rale by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,than summing the products.
°FV 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule.
°Fees recommended by City Mentor adoption.To be filled by City staff.
Additional notes:
FB Hourly Rate indicates that the service is charged based on the F6 Hourly Rale of the position performing the service.
A. .1 Cost indicates that the service is charged based on the actual costs.including labor and materials expenses,to the City to render the service.
26
CHAPTER 7: PLANNING
Description of Services
The Planning Division is part of the Community Development Department. It works with Building
Division and Public Works Departments on issues such as sign permits, use permits, new
development, and additions to existing structures. The Planning Division is also responsible for
providing general information for the physical development and uses of a property within various
zoning districts. It ensures that Zoning Code regulations are complied by existing and new
developments.
Analysis and Recommendations
The Planning Division requested that we analyze fees for the following services:
➢ Pre-applications for plan check
➢ Applications for plan check
➢ Environmental
➢ Noticing
➢ Signs
Based on our analysis,we conclude the following:
➢ Most fees are not sufficient to cover the total costs of services rendered.
➢ For service that requires a wide range of staff time and to be completed by different staff
each time,it is more reasonable for the City to charge actual costs of delivering the service or
to calculate fee based on the FB Hourly Rate of staff who rendered the service.
➢ For services that the current fees are higher than the estimated total costs to the City to
render those services,it is important for policy makers to understand that any fees in excess
of the estimated total costs of rendering the services must be approved by a popular vote of
two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.
➢ Under the Fees Recommended by City Staff column of Table 7, please fill in your
recommended fee for adoption for each service. Generally we recommend the City to set
fee based on 100% of the cost recovery level; however, the City may want to set fee lower
than the full cost recovery fee due local policy and political considerations.
As mentioned previously in this report, the purpose of this study is to determine the full cost
recovery fee or the total cost to the City for providing a service, but it is the City's decision to
determine the fee level, up to 100.00% of the total cost, for each service based on local policy and
political considerations.
OMuniFinancial
27
Table 7: Planning-Full Cost Rec very Fee
z
n
d 0 ca
� O O U
n > O
U
> t o Total
16 Estimated
~ o_ ' Time Full Cost Recovery Fees Current Feer Fees Recommended By City Staff`
E O N O M
E c c E w (Minutes)'
m
O O d O L
a rn 1 0 1 v
Planning
FB Hourly Rate' $ 65 $ 76 $ 97 1$ 120 $ 164 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes $ 1.08 $ 1.27 1.62 $ 2.00 $ 2.74 $ 2.16
Service/Application Staff Time Spent on Each Service in Minutes z Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
..,.... r.. ., ..�c a ., 5;,�" •.; ,�u .. -.. .. ". :b.., ..>"..W.�7''..»^ " ..: ,�`=,x. '�':.�e 's .',v, * .:"``a. ' #":.. vs": �?':.::. .; ,aµ:;.. zee %`z.:R
1 Pre-Applications
50%of fee will be
50%of fee will be credited toward credited toward
2 Preliminary plan check of new construction 150 150 $ 242.28 required application fees if and $ 185.00 required application
when project is submitted as a fees if and when project
complete application is submitted as a
complete application
50%of fee will be
50%of fee will be credited toward credited toward
3 Preliminary plan check of remodel 90 90 145.37 required application fees if and 125.00 required application
when project is submitted as a fees if and when project
complete application is submitted as a
complete application
4 Applications
5 Antenna exception 65 30 260 60 110 525 948.83 25.00
Ambiguity/Determine Hearing before Planning
6 Commission(applies to Planning,Fire,and 50 190 165 405 884.48 490.00
Building requests)
7 Amendment/Extension to permits 70 110 20 200 307.86 220.00
Appeal to City Council from Planning
8 Commission decisions(does not include 50 20 230 300 715.61 250.00
noticing costs
9 Conditional use permit 65 30 567 15 125 802 1,395.97 950.00
10 Condominium
11 4 units or less 65 525 155 745 1,342.22 1,010.00
12 5 units or more 65 670 155 890 1,576.43 1,225.00
13 Design Review
14 New construction 55 307 127 489 902.70 Minimum deposit of$800 is 600.00
required
15 Addition 20 317 10 122 469 887.39 Minimum deposit of$800 isre uired 580.00
16 Amendment 20 305 20 80 425 773.02 Minimum deposit of$800 is 425.00
required
17 Handling fee 260 10 270 447.32 290.00
28
Table 7: Planning-Full Cost Rec very Fee
2 E
a �
O U
N N N 0
N U � (]
Lo 0, Total
m m Estimated
c
a o .5 Time Cost Recovery Fee 4 Current Fee° Fees Recommended By City Staff'
E c c c E 0d (Minutes)'
O O N N O L
a cn 00 0
Planning
FB Hourly Rate' $ 65 $ 76 1$ 97 1$ 120 $ 164 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) 1.081 $ 1.271 $ 1.621 $ 2.001 $ 2.741 $ 2.16
Service/Application Staff Time Spent on Each Service in Minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
is Information submittalto Planning Commission 50 70 10 130 194.33 200.00
19 Fence exception 65 30 230 125 450 821.72 670.00
20 General plan amendment 65 285 390 300 1040 2,129.42 1,400.00
21 Minor modification/Hillside area construction 20 160 10 10 200 327.31 250.00
permit
22 Rezoning 65 210 250 380 905 1,947.90 1,225.00
23 Second unit amnesty permit 60 60 130.00 Per hour,$400 deposit is required 132.00 PMO
a deposit of
$400 is required
24 Special use permit 65 30 567 15 125 802 1,395.97 950.00
25 Variance 65 30 180 15 115 1 405 743.52 950.00
26 Environmental
27 Categorical exception 30 10 40 68.41 60.00
28 Initial study 360 60 60 480 865.37 120.00
29 Negative declaration 965 60 150 1175 2,088.87 1,340.00
30 Mitigated declaration and/or with a responsible 1215 60 150 1425 2,492.67 1,565.00
agency
Contract cost plus 35%of contract 35%of contract,
31 Environmental impact report for administrative service;Deposit deposit to be
amount is to be determined by the determined by City
City Planner Planner
32 Environmental posting fee,Negative 120 120 239.40 150.00
Declaration and EIR
33 Fish&Game fee for Negative Declaration, 1,800.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.4 1,800.00 Fish&Game Code,
whether miti ated or not Section 711.4
34 Fish&Game fee for Environmental Impact 2,500.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.5 2,500.00 Fish&Game Code,
Re ort Section 711.5
35 County Clerk processing fee for Fish&Game 50.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.6 50.00 Fish&Game Code,
Section 711.6
3s Noticing
37 R-11 and R-22 100 20 120 140.10 115.00
38 All other Districts 100 20 120 140.10 115.00
39 R-1 Design Review
40 Residential 120 40 160 193.97 170.00
41 All other Districts 120 40 160 193.97 170.00
42Minor modification/Hillside area construction 120 40 10 170 213.92 947.33 170.00
[permits
29
Table 7:Planning-Full Cost Rec very Fee
r
d 0 U C O U
N N N 0
Q
t o m Total
m m D -o Estimated
c
o a D g m' Time Full Cost Recovery Fee° Current Fee` Fees Recommended By City Staff`
E c C 'c E ami `w (Minutes)3
0 0 ° m o t
d n 00 U
Planning
FB Hourly Rate' $ 65 $ 76 $ 97 $ 120 $ 164 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.081 $ 1.211 $ 1.621 $ 2.00 1 $ 2.14 $ 2.16
Service/Application Staff Time Spent on Each Service in Minutes z Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
43 General plan amendment 175 60 60 295 472.54 Plus$675 for newspaper ads;$13 1,080.00
for 100 cards,$46 for postage
ads;$13
as Rezoning 175 60 60 295 472.54 Plus$675 for newspaper1,060.00
for 100 cards;$46 for postage
Plus$450 for newspaper ads;
45 Environmental impact report 175 60 60 295 472.54 $15.60 for 60 cards;$55.20 for 1,090.00
postage
as City Council appeal 35 10 10 55 85.05 30.00
47 Second unit amnesty 35 10 10 10 65 101.20 55.00
as Signs
49 Sign Variance 65 30 570 115 780 1,343.53 1,010.00
50 Signs
51 50 sq.ft.or less 30 30 32.34 28.00
52 Over 50 s .ft.but less than 200 s .ft. 60 60 64.68 56.00
53 Over 200 s .ft. 75 75 1 95.20 82.00
' Table A7.
z Provided by the City.
3 Total estimated time to provide each service.
°Derived by multiplying each position's FB Minute Rate by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,then summing the products. The result represents total cost to render each service
s FY 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule.
`Fees recommended by City staff for adoption. To be filled by City staff.
Additional notes:
FB Hourly Rate indicates that the service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rate of the position performing the service
Actual Cost indicates that the service is charged based on the actual costs,including labor and materials expenses,to the City to render the service
30
CHAPTER 8: BUILDING INSPECTION
Description of Services
The Building Inspection Division is a part of the Community Development Department. It
responsible for permit issuance and field inspections of all development occurs within the City of
Burlingame. It ensures that developments comply with, at the minimum, requirements of the State
Building Codes,State and Federal Laws,and Local Ordinances.
Analysis and Recommendations
The Building Inspection Division requested that we analyze fees for the following services:
➢ Building Permits
➢ Plan Review
➢ Plumbing Related Services
➢ Mechanical Related Services
➢ Electrical Related Services
Based on our analysis,we conclude the following:
➢ The City decided to continue using valuation approach to determine building permit and
building plan check fees. As such a Macro Analysis was conducted to determine if total
revenue generated from fees exceeds the total cost to the City to render services related to
building permit and building plan check,see Table 9.
➢ Most fees are not sufficient to cover the total costs of services rendered.
➢ For service that requires a wide range of staff time and to be completed by different staff
each time,it is more reasonable for the City to charge actual costs of delivering the service or
to calculate fee based on the FB Hourly Rate of staff who rendered the service.
➢ For services that the current fees are higher than the estimated total costs to the City to
render those services,it is important for policy makers to understand that any fees in excess
of the estimated total costs of rendering the services must be approved by a popular vote of
two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.
➢ Under the Fees Recommended by City Staff column of Table 8, please fill in your
recommended fee for adoption for each service. Generally we recommend the City to set
fee based on 100% of the cost recovery level; however, the City may want to set fee lower
than the full cost recovery fee due local policy and political considerations.
As mentioned previously in this report, the purpose of this study is to determine the full cost
recovery fee or the total cost to the City for providing a service, but it is the City's decision to
determine the fee level, up to 100.00% of the total cost, for each service based on local policy and
political considerations.
WMuniFinancial 31
Table 8: Building Inspection-Full Cost ecove Fee
0
U
N 76
C N
Ac C Q CD O
t a o Total
a) v Estimated 4 s s
m m Time Full Cost Recovery Fee Current Fee Fees Recommended By City Staff
o
W ' (Minutes)7
`m m s
a m J) U
Building
FB Hourly Rate $ 75 $ 98 1$ 107 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.251 $ 1.631 $ 1.781 $ 2.16
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application MinutesFee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
7 1y
Building Permit Fees Based on Total
Valuation
2$1 to$500 $ 34.50 $ 34.50
For the first$500 plus For the first$500 plus
3$501 to$2,000 34.50 $4.80 for each addt'I 34.50 $4.80 for each addt'I
$100 or fraction thereof to $100 or fraction thereof
and including$2,000 to and including$2,000
For the first$2,000 plus For the first$2,000 plus
4$2,001 to$25,000 99.20 $20.20 for each addt'I 99.20 $20.20 for each addt'I
$1,000 or fraction thereof $1,000 or fraction thereof
to and including$25,000 to and including$25,000
For the first$25,000 plus For the first$25,000 plus
5$25,001 to$50,000 556.45 $14.85 for each addt'I 556.45 $14.85 for each addfl
$1,000 or fraction thereof $1,000 or fraction thereof
to and including$50,000 to and including$50,000
For the first$50,000 plus For the first$50,000 plus
$10.10 for each addt'I $10.10 for each addt'I
6$50,001 to$100,000 916.10 $1,000 or fraction thereof 916.10 $1,000 or fraction thereof
to and including$100,000 to and including
$100,0 0
For the first$100,000 For the first$100,000
plus$8.50 for each addt'I plus$8.50 for each addt'I
7$101,000 to$500,000 1,413.20 $1,000 or fraction thereof 1,413.20 $1,000 or fraction thereof
to and including$500,000 t0 and including
$500 000
32
Table 8: Building Inspection-Full Cost Recovery Fee
`o
CL
u
m
c 0
CD
E a Total
L
(D Estimated
~ o, ' Time Full Cost Recovery Fee°
00 Current Fees Fees Recommended By City Staff e
S m
E V ° 3
T (Minutes)
IL I CO 0 v
Buildin
FB Hourly Rate $ 75 $ 98 $ 107 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.251 $ 1.631 $ 1.781 $ 2.16
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application Minutes 2 Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
For the first$500,000 For the first$500,000
plus$6.90 for each addt'I plus$6.90 for each addt'I
8$501,000 to$1,000,000 4,595.35 $1,000 or fraction thereof 4,595.35 $1,000 or fraction thereof
to and including to and including
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
For the first$1,000,000 For the first$1,000,000
9 More than$1,000,000 7,975.80 plus$5.30 for each addt'I 7,975.80 plus$5.30 for each addt'I
$1,000 or fraction thereof $1,000 or fraction thereof
10 Inspections outside normal business hours 60 60 98.04 Per hour;minimum 4 85.00 Per hour;minimum
hours charge is for 4 hours
11 Re-inspection Per hour;minimum 1
P 60 60 98.04 Per hour;minimum 1 our 85.00 hour
12 Plan Review
13 Basic fee 65%of Building permit 65%of Building permit
fee fee
14 Energy plan check fee,where applicable Additional 25%of Additional 25%of
Buildin ermit fee Building permit fee
15 Disabled access plan check,where applicable Additional 35%of Additional 35%of .
Building permit fee Building permit fee
16 Planning Department plan check fee,where Additional 15%of Additional 15%of
applicable Building permit fee Building permit fee
17 Plan revisions for Planning Department 60 60 98.04 85.00
18 Plan revisions subsequent to permit issuance 60 60 98.04 Per hour,plus any 85.00 Per hour plus cost of any
additional cost additional review
19 Engineering Division plan review,where Additional 25%of Additional 25%of
applicable Building permit fee Building permit fee
20 Imaging fee Additional 5%of Building Additional 5%of Building
permit fee permit fee
21 Arborist review Additional 5.75%of Additional 5.75%of
Building permit fee Building permit fee
33
Table 8: Building Inspection-Full Cost ecove Fee
0
U
U7 �
C � C
m 0
L o Total
c _ v Estimated
Time Full Cost Recovery Fee° Current Fees Fees Recommended By City Staff s
C CO
E 16 ° (Minutes)3
o- m 0 v
Building
FB Hourly Rate' $ 75 $ 98 1$ 107 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Ratel60 Minutes) $ 1.251 $ 1.631 $ 1.781 $ 2.16
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application MinutesFee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
22 PLUMBING(The following fees do not include connections fees such as for seer connectionsor water meterfees charged by other City departments.nor any fees charged by public utility companies)
23 For issuance of each plumbing permit 30 30 37.47 34.50
New residential building
(Including all plumbing fixtures,connections
and gas outlets for new single-family or multi- Per sq.ft.of habitable Per sq.ft.of habitable
24 family buildings.The estimated time is based 180 180 0.12 area 0.09 area
on the work to be complete for a residential
home with an average size of 2,500 square
feet
Fixtures and vents-for each plumbing fixture
25 or trap(including water and waste piping and 10 10 16.34 14.50
backflowprevention)
26 Sewer and Interceptors
27 For each building sewer 35 35 57.19 34.50
28 For each industrial waste pretreatment 30 30 49.02 28.65
interceptor(except kitchen-type grease traps)
29 Water Piping and Water Heaters
30 For installation alteration or repair of water 30 30 49.02 6.95
piping or water-treatment equipment
31 For each water heater including vent 30 30 49.02 18.00
32 Gas Piping Systems
33 1 to 5 outlets 20 20 32.68 9.55
34 Each additional outlet over 5 outlets 4 4 6.54 2.10
35 Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention
Devices
36 Irrigation systems including backflow 30 30 49.02 21.25
device(s)
37 Other backflow prevention devices
38 2" 50.8 mm or smaller 30 30 49.02 1 21.25
39 Over 2" 50.8 mm 30 30 1 49.02 34.50
34
Table 8: Building Inspection- Full Cost Recovery Fee
0
U _
Q N
C U
m o 0
r a m Total
W g Estimated
~ m m m Time Full Cost Recovery Fee° Current Fees Fees Recommended By City Staff 6
E a
E 3� (Minutes)
N
mo N L
o_ u> U
Buildin
FB Hourly Rate' $ 75 $ 98 $ 107 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.25 $ 1.631 $ 1.781 $ 2.16
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application Minutes z Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
40 Swimming Pools/Spas
41 Public pool 120 120 196.09 131.35
42 Public spa 90 90 147.07 85.00
43 Private pool 120 120 196.09 85.00
44 Private spa 90 90 147.07 42.50
45 Miscellaneous
46 For each appliance or fixture for which no fee 20 20 32.68 14.00
is listed
47 inspections outside normal business hours 60 60 98.04 Per hour 85.50 Per hour
48 Re-inspection 60 60 98.04 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
49
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated 60 60 98.04 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
50 Imaging fee Additional 5%of Additional 5%of
Plumbing permit fee Plumbing permit fee
51 Plan review where plans are required Additional 25%of Additional 25%of
Plumbing permit fee Plumbing permit fee
52 MECHANICAL(The following fees do not include connections fees such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies)
53 For issuance of each mechanical ermit 30 30 37.47 34.50
New residential building
(Including all mechanical work such as
54 appliances,exhaust fans,ducts,and flues. 140 140 009 Per sq.ft.of habitable 0 09 Per sq.ft.of habitable
.
The estimated time is based on the work to be area area
completed for a residential home with an
average size of 2,500 square feet
55 Furnace
56—Up to 100 MBTU 30 30 49.02 21.65
57 Over 1000 MBTU 30 30 49.02 28.85
59 Boilers,compressors,absorption sstems
59 U to 100 MBTU or 3HP 30 30 49.02 21.65
60 Over 100 MBTU or 3HP 30 30 49.02 40.20
35
Table 8: Building Inspection-Full Cost ecove Fee
0
U
N ip
d U
m O
tn �' Total
c c — Estimated
Time Full Cost Recovery Fee° Current Fee a Fees Recommended By City Staff e
c m
v .0 3
E (Minutes)
w S d r
a Co 0 U
Building
FB Hourly Rate $ 75 $ 98 1$ 107 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.251 $ 1.631 $ 1.78 $ 2.16
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application Minutes Z Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
61 Air Conditioners 30 30 49.02 21.65
62 Air Handlers
63 U to 10,000 CFM including ducting 20 20 32.68 Each 14.40 Each
64 Over 10,000 CFM 30 30 49.02 Each 21.65 Each
65 Ventilation and Exhaust
66 Each ventilation fan attached to a single duct 10 10 16.34 Each 10.80 Each
67 Each nood including ducts 15 15 24.51 Each 21.65 Each
68 Miscellaneous
69 For each appliance or piece of equipment not 15 15 24.51 21.65
specifically listed above
70 Inspections outside normal business hours 60 60 98.04 Per hour;minimum 4 85.00 Per hour;minimum
hours charge is for 4 hours
71 Re-inspection 60 60 98.04 Per hour;minimum 1 85.00 Per hour;minimum 1
hour hour
72 Inspections for which no fee is specifically 60 60 98.04 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
indicated
73 Imaging fee Additional 5%of Additional 5%of
Mechanical permit fee Mechanical permit fee
74 Plan review where plans are required Additional 25%of Additional 25%of
Mechanical permit fee Mechanical permit fee
75 ELECTRICAL(The following fees do not include connections fees such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by;other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies)
76 For issuance of each electrical permit 30 30 37.47 34.50
New residential building
(Including all wiring and electrical devices in or
77 on each building,including service. The 140 140 0.09 Per sq.ft.of habitable 0.09 Per sq.ft.of habitable
estimated time is based on work to be area area
complete for a residential home with an
avers a size of 2,500 square feet
36
Table 8: Building Inspection- Full Cost Recovery Fee
0
U
N N
C N U
N C O
a Total
L _o Estimated
~ m' ' Time Full Cost Recovery Fee° Current Fee 6 Fees Recommended By City Staff 6
c m
E °
C �_ (Minutes)'
N J N L
Buildin
FB Hourly Rate $ 75 $ 98 $ 107 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.25 $ 1.631 $ 1.781 $ 2.16
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application Minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
78 System Fee Schedule
79.Swimming Pools/Spas
80 Public swimming pools and spas including all 60 60 98.04 85.00
wiringand electrical equipment
81 Private pools for single-family residences 45 45 73.53 68.50
82 Temporary Power
83 Temporary service pole including all attached 30 30 49.02 34.50
receptacles
84 Temporary power pole and wiring for 30 30 49.02 51.50
construction sites,Christmas tree lots,etc.
85 Unit Fee Schedule
86 Receptacle,switch and light outlets
87 First 20 units 30 30 49.02 34.50
88 Each additional unit 2 2 3.27 1.05
89 Appliances
Residential -for fixed residential appliances
90 including cooktops,ovens,air conditioning, 5 5 8.17 Each 7.00 Each
garbase disposals,and similar devices not
exceeding 1 HP in rating
Non-residential-for self-contained factory-
wired non-residential applicances not
exceeding 1 HP,KW,kVA in rating including
91 medical and dental devices,food,beverage 5 5 8.17 Each 7.00 Each
and ice cream cabinets,illuminated
showcases,drinking fountains;vending
machines laundry machines etc.
37
Table 8: Building Inspection- Full Cost ecove Fee
0
U
C �p
0 U
CD
m O
L o_ Total
c c — Estimated
Time Full Cost Recovery Fee" Current Fees Fees Recommended By City Staff 6
c m
E E (Minutes)'
(D a� t
a m cn v
Building
FB Hourly Rate' $ 75 $ 98 $ 107 1$ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes) $ 1.251 $ 1.631 $ 1.781 $ 2.16
Staff Time Spent on Each Service in
Service/Application Minutes I Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
Power Apparatus-for motors,generators,air
conditioners,heat pumps,commercial cooking
92 devices,and,etc.(ratings in hoursepower,
kilowatts,kilovolt-amperes,or kilovolt-amperes-
reactive)
93 U to 10 15 15 1 24.51 17.50
94 Over 10 to and including 100 30 1 30 1 49.02 39.75
95 Over 100 1 60 60 98.04 108.00
Notes:1)For equipment or appliances having
more than one motor,transformer,heater,
96 etc.,the sum of the combined ratings may be
used,and 2)these fees include all switches,
circuit breakers,contractors,thermostats,
relays,and other related control equipment.
97 Photo voltaic systems
98 U to 3,000 watts 120 120 240 409.70 309.00
99 Over 3,000 watts
100 Plan check 60 60 106.80 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
101 Permit 120 60 180 302.89 309.00
Trolleys and plug-in type busways For each 100 ft or fraction For each 100 ft(30,500
102(The estimated time is based on work to be 15 15 24.51 thereof 10.60 mm)or fraction thereof
complete per 100 ft
103 Signs,Outline Lighting and Marquees
104 signs,outline lighting,or marquees supplied 30 30 49.02 Each 34.50 Each
from one circuit
105 For additional branch circuits within the same 10 10 16.34 Each 7.00 Each
sign,outline lighting,or marquee
106 Services
107600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes 30 30 49.02 Each 39.75 Each
38
Table 8:Building Inspection-Full Cost Recomy Fee
Total
_ — Estimated
F m m' Time Full Cost Recovery Fee° Current Fee' Fees Recommended By City Staff°
E — — :S (Minutes)
of n U
Building
FB Hourl Rate' $ 75 $ 98 $ 107 $ 130
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate160 Minutes) $ 2.18
Staff Time Spent on Each Service In
Service/A Ilcation Minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
1Ds 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 45 45 73.53 Each 91.25 Each
and includin 1,000
amperes
109Over 600 volts and over 1,000 amperes 60 60 98.04 Each 171.00 Each
110 Miscellaneous
For apparatus,conduits,and conductors for
771 which a permit is required but for which no fee 20 20 32.68 28.85
is set forth
112 Inspection outside normal business hours 60 60 9804 Per hour;minimum 4 85.00 Per hour,minimum
hours charge is for 4 hours
113 Re-inspection 60 60 98.04 Per hour;minimum 1 85.00 Per hour,minimum 1
hour hour
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
114 indicated 60 60 98.04 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
115 Imaging fee Additional5%of Additional 5%of
Electrical ermit fee Electrical rtrut(ee
116 Pian review where plans are requlld Additional 25%of Additioanl 25%of
Electrical rmit fee Electrical rtnil fee
717 General Fees
11a A eal fee of Plannin Commission 128 128 277.11 139.00
Table A8.
'Provitlad by the City.
'Total estimated time to provide each service.
°Derived by multiplying each position's FB Minute Rate by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,then summing the products.The result represents total cost to render each service.
°FY 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule.
s Fees recommended by City staff for adoption.To be filled by City staff.
Additional notes:
FB Hourly Rate indicates that the service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rate of the position perforning the service.
Actual Cost indicates that the service is charged based on the actual costs,including labor and materials expenses,to the City to render the service.
Based on Valuation indicates that the service is charged based on the valuation,see Table 9 for the Macro Analysis.
39
Macro Analysis
Building permit fees are used to offset the costs of inspecting and documenting building
construction while plan review fees are usually a percentage of the building permit fee. The plan
review fees are used to offset the costs of reviewing and approving the building plan. For those
services that fees are being charged base on valuation, it is recommended the fees be determined
base on actual time and materials costs by employing the square footage method. However, the City
decided to continue using valuation method, and therefore, a Macro Analysis was conducted to
evaluate the cost recovery level of these services (See Table 9).
While not supported by law or legal interpretations, it is a general practice of most cities in California
that building permit fees are based on the value of the proposed construction project and plan
review fees is some percentage of the building permit fees. Many agencies establish building permit
fees based on the periodic fee schedules published in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or by the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Both schedules also provide guidelines for
plan check fees that are typically a percentage of the building permit fee.
It is the intent of the City to continue using the valuation approach to establish its building permit
and plan check fees that the Division determines best to recover the cost of providing the service to
the public. Although the use of valuation approach is a common method of pricing, it remains
necessary for the City to justify its fees for the purpose of showing good faith compliance with the
State of California Attorney General's Opinion No. 92-506. In this opinion, the Attorney General
states, "a local agency is prohibited from charging building permit and similar fees which exceed the
estimated reasonable costs of providing the services rendered unless the amounts of the fees are
approved by the electorate." Furthermore, there are market conditions requiring the City to consider
discounting fees charged for repetitive services, in particular repeat plan check fees for new
residential developments.
For this purpose, we performed a Macro Analysis to determine if the actual budgeted of fiscal year
2005-06 revenues exceed the total expenses of Building Inspection Division. For fiscal year 2005-
06, the Division generated the total revenue of $835,059 to offset the total expenditure of $900,109.
Under this condition, the Division recovered 92.77% of the total expenditure. We believe that
based on this information, the City of Burlingame is charging reasonable fees for its building permits
and plan check services.
MuniRnancial 4�
Table 9: Building Inspection—Macro Analysis
Total Revenue vs.Total Cost
Actual FY 2005-06
REVENUES: '
Building Permits $ 835,059
TOTAL COST:
Direct Expenses:
Personnel $ 704,282
Operating 130,629
Total $ 834,911
Indirect Expenses:
ADD: Central Services Overhead 2 65,198
Total $ 65,198
Total Cost $ 900,109
Total Revenue as Percentage of Total Cost 92.77%
City of Burlingame.
2 Central Services Overhead allocated to Building, Cost Allocation Plan.
MMuniFinancial 41
CHAPTER 9: PARKS & RECREATION
Description of Services
The main responsibilities of the Parks & Recreation Department are to enrich and enhance the
quality of life for all members of the City of Burlingame by providing well maintained playgrounds,
street trees, park space and recreational facilities, offering a diversified program of recreational
activities,and supporting other community groups.
Analysis and Recommendations
Parks & Recreation Department is unlike any other departments within the City because fees
charged for its services can be set at the total costs, or can be considered rental charges, which in
this case would need to be set at a competitive,market rates. While it is our intent to determine full
cost recovery fees for the Parks & Recreation Department, it should be understood that these fees
are based on the staff-time and materials determined necessary to provide the service to the user and
do not include costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep of the facilities themselves. It is
the City's decision as to whether it will set its fees at the total cost or on a time and materials basis.
Regardless, this analysis can serve as a guide for management to determine how much it should
charge to adequately compensate for staff time and materials.
The total costs that are included in this analysis only reflect the staff time at FB hourly rates,and not
the cost of the City's recreational fixed assets. Fixed assets are values of buildings and land holdings
that have no on-going cost other than maintenance and replacement, and these values cannot be
feasibility calculated to determine a field rental charge or program fee. Instead we recommend that
the City adopt the approach for the Parks &Recreation Department that other jurisdictions use and
set its fees at a market rate that is competitive enough to ensure public use and at a minimum covers
the cost of staff time and materials.
For the purpose of showing good faith that the City complies with the State of California Attorney
General's Opinion No. 92-506, a Macro Analysis was also conducted to indicate that the total
revenue generated from fees not exceeds the total expenditure of the Department. This allows us to
address the "reasonable" criteria at a macro level. In FY 2005-2006, the Parks & Recreation
Department generated total revenue of$1,900,000 to offset the total expenditure of$6,178,493. It
recovered only 30.75%of the total cost to render services to the public.
Based on our analysis,we conclude the following:
➢ The full cost recovery fees calculated for the Department represent labor and materials costs
only,see Table 10.
Generally,we recommend that fees be set at 100% of cost recovery levels. However, some
fees, if set at that level, would preclude the participation of a number of residents and
organizations, and possibly lead to the termination of the service. It is the City
administration's responsibility to decide, based on these findings and other policy
considerations, if fees will be changed. For fees of services that cannot be determined
through time and materials survey and are considered as rental fees, a Macro Analysis was
conducted to evaluate the cost recovery level for those services (see Table 11).
ZMuniFinancial 42
Table 10:Parks&Recreation-FBN Cost R"ovem Fee
EaemMM A w.l chat Mabriala,supplies,c¢niracl
y@@ n o yy Tkne (In Term of labor)a Maintenance,and Eacluaive U- Current Feez Feez Recommended By City 6tal/'
.E t E m 5 G Y X @ E S$N g IMInuMe)r cozl z
Perko 6 Recnatbn r��333 Polies
Fa Haud Rate+f SB 3 58 f 631$ 63 E 64 $ 65 f 86 E 69 E ]] $ 91 S 90 3 35 3 53 3 53 f 56 $61 f e] $135 $
58 E dt 3115
u y ate .ales 1.
1. tnu a t _
cal Nol Not Not
Grou Ch,nf kns lar Pur * ¢s ¢tea
p q»s W Parks d Racree..Fecili8»Usage:
Group A:Govammem agencies xdih Paha 8 Recreation cervica agreements ss8h IM City.wch as Burltgame 6chw1 Disaict entl 6MUH9D `
Group B:Nonprofd(SOtc(3))grouq a orgn¢alions.such as AYSO,BYSA,library Foundation
Group C:Pr'nate qr8»,commercial,huainesa,and poM-makkm orgnim....ouch ea waddings,seminars,recap-
Note:Parks 8Recreakon D pd. is uMike any otherdegrbneMs WMin Me city Mcau»'as lees charged for services reMered cants-M 1M bW coalMc»Mwrrcidereda rentalcharq,whkh In INcw»wouW n¢ed to b¢sala+a--t-..-t rate.TM lul wst recoverypresentetl in this Wbis incWdescast of Blatttime,ant any iM1itdpally lee,andor materials casts.Uflimalely,it is iM1e Ciry's tlecrsiona
to wfielMr f wa»I ds fees al the tont cost(hdl coal recovery lee which only nMcb iM1e abfl eM melerials costs)or al a rental cherq.
1 B.Mn ams Nl hEchaol Mdow Fecill0ea
Main Gm
Gro A 15 15.00 16.08 No cM
Grou B
Ft...nb of..-SD 15 15.00 16.00 15.00 Per hour
Nan+esWaMa 15-w c 15.0 16.08 2(1.00 Per hour
Residents of SMlMSO 15 15.0 15.08 30.w Par hour
Norvresidanh 13 15.00 18.08 50.00 Par Mur
o SmallO
Grou A 1s 1s- 1408 No cha
GResidentro a
s 0l SMUHSD 15 18.00 16.05 10.00P.,Mue
Nomresitlenb 15 15.00 16.8 ISM Par Mur
Grw C
ReskeMa of SMUHSD 15 15.0 16.08 20.00 Par Mur
tdonresklenb 15 15.0 18.05 25.11 Per Mur
e
oft,I'd-Fxig6ea,except Ilea
Auditorium
Grou A 1s 15.00 16.08 Noche
Grou B
21 Residmtbof SMUHSD is 15.0 M. 11.00 Per M1ow
NorvresWertb 15 sidents
G 15.00 16.08 18.50 Per h-
rou C
Reof SMLMSD 15 15.00 16.05 30.00 Par hour
NorwesWenb 15 15.00 16.08 38.00 Per hour
e AuW-i
Grw A 15 15.00 16.08 No cher
Grw B
R.z,,ft of SM-C) 15 15.gD 16.5 ]c.W Per Mw
No-W.. 15 Ism 18.08 W.w Per Mw
31 Grou G
ResiMrrts of SMUHSD 1s 15.0 16.8 71.00 Par how
NomresWama 15 15.00 18.08 edM Per how
3a Oth<r cha e
Bu.1 A.M.. 60 fi0.00 35.88 Par Mw 22.00 Par how
Waektle
We d.yW.Cusrotlian 80.0 par Mw 80.00 Par how
.-..negg3.
ENm NorvScMtluNd Hours 125.00 Par Mw 125.Op Per how
Sacur Personal 80 mw 118.11 Per hwr 80.00 Per Mur
TabWChalrs
NIM 51-100 1.00
Owr 1 W 15.00
Coffee P. 20'00
WglbearbM»ryad 10.00 ver
-CR
30.00 AtlMMgI
Overined eNor 10.00
Mkro 0 10'00
10.00
ae euHMpema Mgh Echaol(OufdooeFadfltl
neW W Peyer qr
OtWwrtac38ka or eeW a»lor6»ew Ey 15 18.00 16.8 10.00 WDM pYyar arm
50 a.liro.me-w»a nwpraM ywn aqm empp
+ S-1 Fletd
Q-A 1515.00 18.08 No cM
Gro,B
Residenh olSMU1SD 1 15.00 1fi.08 20.00 Perhwr
NorwasWaMs 15 15.00 16.08 30.00 Perhwr
Grw C
RaNtleMs of SMUHSD Is 15.00 16.08 d0.00 Per Mur
Notweaidenb 1s Ism 16.09 seoo Per Mur
.1
Stadium Tmk nckan
Table 10:Parks 8 Recreation-Full Cost Recovery Fee
Y m u
3 - g ' c z o � eGe`s
Q qq 9 Materials,Bu 1
n s C n °' S Tow pp iea,Contract
�.W a _9 $ $_ Ea8maletl Actual Cost Maintenance,antl Eacluaive Use
c S rc C a e ¢ a a e C-IFeer Fees Recommendetl Oy Cily a-,
j S J Fw F P n .a -.F p e B�'� z,-
E.H.-
Ti.. Iln Term of Laborlr Coal'
No
3 r� � .� 1MIwHa1,
Parks 8 R-,11on Poace
FB Xaudy RMer S 511 S 58 S 89 f 67 3 N f 65 S 66 f 6B f T9 S 91 E 9d E J9 f SJ S 59 E SB E 61 3 89 f 195 E 56 S dt E118
nuH a u y 0.. -97
cel pp Icer. MaB TMeS a Nates Notes Fee N.- Fee Ha
r. .,:... .... ..
w Grou A 15 15.4. 16.08 No cher
G-P B
Reaitlenta of SMU15D 15 15.W 16.08 10.00 Par hov
NonreakXMs 15 1.4. 16.08 15.4. Per hour
Gro.C
ResMlents o/SMUHSD 15 15.0020.00 Par how
Was
NoMe 15 15.00 18.08 25.00 Per hov
a7Back FiWd Fleur
Grou A 15 15.W 16.08 N...
-
GB
R.sW-WSMMSD 15 15.4. 16.08 15.00 Per hour
71 --ft 13 I I 15.00 16.08 20.W Par hov
72 Grou C
73 Real-.OSPJ 1SD 15 15.4.I M. 20.00 Per hov
7. Nomre-ft 15 15.4. 16.08 25.W Per hov
75 S*k Il Fleltl61wIY2
71 2
1w1
15 15.00 16.06 No cke
Grou B
71 RaskaMsoISMUNSD 15 15.00 16.08 10.00 Par hov
7. 15 15.00 16.08 15.4. Par
hov
AC
R.s-oI SM"D 15 15.00 16.08 20.00 Per hov
NorvrastleMs 15 15.00 16.06 25.00 Per My
3 Tennis Courts
Grou q 15 15.00 16.08 Noche
Grou B
Resitlentaol5MUH5D 15 15,00 18.08 15.00 For4 Mure
NonresWenta 15 15.00 16.08 15.00 For4MuH
G-pc
RosldeMs of SMUHSD 15 15.W 16.08 90.00 For 4 Mura
Nonreaidonts 15 15.00 16.08 00.00 For4 Mva
e,OF..Wh Fi 8 Rwawtivn Feeltltlea
Bz FG.up Fieltl
Grou A 15 13.4. 18.08 NO Ma
Gro 8
Bulli residents 15 Is.co16.08 10.00 Par
Mae My
NorwesideMc 15 15.4. 16.08 15.4. Pw Mur
G-p C
Bulli reaMenb 15 15.00 18.08 20.W Per My
NmareaMBMS 15 15.00 tour 25.00 Par My
eD Dabe FiNtl
Grou A 15 15.00 18.08 Noche
G-p B
BuM a reskhnH 15 15.4. 18.08 10,00 Par Mur
NanresW6Ms 15 iS.W 16.05 15.00 Par My
Grou C
Budin eme rasitlanH 15 15.4. 16.08 20.00 Par My
NorvreskenH 15 15.00 16.08 25.00 Par My
oe Ba sitle BMl Fieltls ptwp
Grou A 15 15.00 16.08 No
G-P B
Budin meraskonN 15 15.4. 16.06 Per Mur
112 Norvreskenb 15 15.4. 16.00 MOD Par My
Grou C
BurSn me reaitlenH 15 Ism 20.00 Por My
NomenitlenH MOD law
15 15.00 10.00 25.00 Per Mw
a Bayalde Bell flNds lafwB4 rw wMaa or
117
baseball
Grou q 15 13.00 16.08 No rJH
Grou B
Burin me rasitlenh 15 15.00 10.08 ePer hour
NomrasXeMs 15 15.00 18.06 10.w4. Per Mur
121 Grou C
Budin me rasMeMs 15 15.00 18.08 .W Par hour
Nid.0iderda 15 154. 10. M
08 20.00 Per Mur
4 Ba side Ball Planta 10 orW Hr softer
a
G-p q 15 15.00 18.08 Ne sts
Gro B
BuMn me resWeib 15 15.00 18.08 15.00M. Park
NomrasMeMs 15 15.00 18.08 Per hour
Grou C
Bunt erasMaMs 15 15.00 10.08 Mae Per hour
NororeakeMa 15 13.4. 18.06 25.00 Par Mur
92 Cuernavarrt Park
�l:l,lITRf:lit]I1:�:!IRCI TI]It�l�.IT'T mmmmmmmm®�mm®®m�����
�E��ET M'T'F
Table 10:Parks&Recreation-Full Cost Recovery Fee
.m
Nao a° w' @ To1N Marxiela,SUPPIies,Contract
m v da ra a rc y 5 ; S; �o U LL'@ E a Eatlmaretl AcNal Goat 0--tFeer Fees Recommended By City Staff'
.2 b m R Q$b @ Tlme (ln Term ofIF
Labarlr Maml<nance,antl Eaclusive Use
p o f C e C E fl Sq !.6 } C Y ? 3 $ f @ E s y$N 8 'g (Miwtea)r Coat
Y n, C C
PMIM 6 Rec..N- fth..
FB Mau Rater f 58 f "is 63 f 80 f BO E BS S 68 f M f 7J f Al S Sd f>8 E 53 E 5J E 58 1,1,61 1'I'M S 1% f M 3 41 $118
nuW u Y mutes
e
p I ef.fl TbM on eAchfixvlp In Mnrma ales Notes
Gm A 15 M. 18.06 LAe and cost
Gro B
Budwe-r..IdeMa 15 15.00 78.M 125.0 Per hour,pbalNepwrd
cont
Nonaesldxds 15 15.0 I 18.08 18&00 wrhmr;pAs lilepwM
N
Gr C
Buis—roaltlertla 15 15.0 18.08 MW co hour;pWelYepwrtl
M
NorrceaideMs is 15.0 16.08 2M.00 Pmx hour;plus lAapueN
at
2 Paol-SI AIPool
213 G,-p A 75 I 15.0 16.a L' and cost
214 G-p B
Budirpama redtlxM is 15.00 16.8 W.W PP.,hour plus I..u..
t
NorEreakenW 18 15.00 ISM �.� wr Mur:p.11"..
M
217 Group C
BUGMlame reaNeMa 15 18.00 18.08 125.0 Per Mur,pYm MegwM
oN
Mn-reakerb 15 16.0 16.8 1116.00 P"Mur,pfa I"gmw
oN
zzo Pool L....ho
121 Orm A 15 ISM 18.08 Life .M mal
Grou B /5 15.00 1 18.08 t0.0 Per Wne rMur
Grm C 15 75.00 18.08 16.00 ParWm rMur
a Poot Lanes 16-1
-G-P A is 15.0 M. Lifeand mst
Grou B 7s 15.00 16.6 20.00 Per lana rh-
Grou C 15 75.00 18.08 25.0 Per Wne rW.,
229 Small Pbnb Aru
2]a Budin,..reaitlerda is 15.00 16.06 So.W Pbs E50 MUMabW
cbanin de sA
NonaeutleMs is 15.0 16.08Op PWs 550 rNUMabb
ciecnin b A
t La a Picnic Area
232 Budbeamo rmWeMs t5 15.0 16.08 100.0 Pfn E100 rehmdebb
Wenn de aA
Nonresid 15 15.0 16.8 125.00 Pq'a 5100 relundabW
cbenin de aR
x Gesaw
R latrelbn We 7.0 6.82 8.00
R isbalion canmNNbn fes ] 7.00 8.82 6.00 Px clan orawM
Class Fees
To be set eased. To.-based.
b
2. ��� doss provider ant csa provb.r antl
mMMalx4eciAlWs xiahllacANea
providetl p,...d
A.20%mBaas Atld20%loc idea
NonreabeMa lee rouMed to tlm .-d to tM..rest
real do8ar Aer
2.
50%ofl cbas lee on 50%o5 cbsa lee on
Semor tlbmuM-BurAneeme reaWerds ape
65 and over dosses MM al cbasea MM at
Reaeatlon Center Recrembn CeMx
241
Salvor Gamuts-rlxwesitlena pe 65 ant Wates.rweaNeM
lee Weise.nr.aitlmlfae
a2T-dPxk.F-
MenreMltr.e pbM,p aM adtlfiorml street tM 780.0 1W.% MM To buy a hoe 75.00
tree WM
ProWded Tree RamawlA imibns 80 120 180.00 145.88 50.00
Arbodat'c pbn re.w for WMacaP.
2cc requi.....on planning applications(see 240 240.00 183.]6 125.0
abo he schedule
Arborist check of conslmdion plans ant
i.pceon of Wndscep requirements on 240 240.00 183.J8 5'75%MbuAd've
buipin mil subm4ta s ���
Appel to City CauncB hom BeaWfrcetion
CommWaion tlxlabn(does nM hcNrde M 120 180.00 10.5.88 230.00
nodcb c
Table 10:Parks&Recreation-FuY Coat Reeove Fee
2, E$ y8 b a E n`r Epq Q w
TOMI Materials,SuppNes,Gontracl
EatlmaN•e ActuM Cost
*a.F T4na Mainlenarce,and Ex
F
clusive Uee Curren)Fee' ees Recommenced ByGlry
f c i I 3{ 5 r P g w 9 a g yC Iln Term of Labor)'
°
O E Prb 6 Racsaetlon a PaEce
F0 RaY°S 59 f 53 S W S &t f N i 63 3 36 S ® f ]3 f 91 S>H f A 3 35 3 57 3 53 3 61 3 0.l S 1� 3 SD f At f 119
Se
Farb aarrlw Ml9trules Notes
Fee Notre
StM Tbr„ on ee otes ee ee tea
]„ Notic Cb—IA—W .a.. b ..•.W.W I M.15 15.00
'TagesA ant A9.
°Provided by Ue CMy.
s
T-1.tm-4me b Wovide each servke.
'brived by mWiplying each posNon's FB Minute Rete by 1M number of mindea each posMlpn spent on each service.lMn summing the protluclz.The reaul r,M.Ms,Wr cost la provko each servke.
z Th4d MM Ilea,metadsb coals,eMlor exGusive use lees.
°FY I00]-0B Master Fse`c dub.
'Faea rocemmeMetl by Cdy steB for adopion.To M fiNd by Gay stag.
Atldifi-A nota:
FB Homry Rab iMkllas IMt dro servke is charged based on tM FB Hourly Rete d IM positbn performing the servke.
Acluel Cwt iMksles IMt g„servke Is—M d based on tM.1w1 cosh,in ft bbw eM metMb cap—.to the CO to renter the service.
Table 11: Parks & Recreation—Macro Analysis
Total Revenue vs.Total Cost
Actual FY 2005-06
REVENUES: '
Total Revenue $ 1,900,000
TOTAL COST:
Direct Expenses:
Parks $ 2,518,414
Recreation 3,212,552
Total $ 5,730,966
Indirect Expenses:
ADD: Central Services Overhead 2
Parks 196,661
Recreation 250,866
Total $ 447,527
Total Cost $ 6,178,493
Total Revenue as Percentage of Total Cost 4 30.75%
City of Burlingame.
2 Central Servcies Overhead allocated to Parks&Recreation, Cost Allocation Plan.
48
aMuninancial
F
CHAPTER 10: RENTAL & PENALTY FEES
This study does not analyze fees where the total cost cannot be determined through a time and
materials survey. Such fees, which are not considered user fees, include rental charges for rooms
and facilities or for equipment, fines,penalty fees, or late charges. Cities typically rent property for
special uses and charge what is deemed a competitive market rate for such rent. We believe that the
City can use this approach for fees that are considered rental charges. We would expect that
reasonableness and market comparables would be a good basis for determining the level of rental
fees as well as of other types of fees mentioned above. Table 12 shows fees of Finance,Library,and
Police Departments that were considered as rental or penalty fees.
MMuniRnar M 49
Table 12:Rental&Penalty Fees
�E
IaaLpp.�
d W d d LL
ti al Materials,Supplies,Contract
.N w F`d
Estimated Actual Cost ° Maintenance,Utility,Exclusive Use, Full Cost Recovery Feer Current Fee' Fees Recommended By City Staff'
s ? (In Term of Labor) s
9� m' w (Minutes)' Rental,and/or Penalty Charge
Libra
FB Hourl Rate' $ 65 74$ $ 79
FB Minute Rate(FB Hourly Rate/60 Minutes 1.09 1.24 1.31
Staff Time Spent on Each
Servi"A licabon Service in minutes' Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
FlNANCE -
1 Temporary Water Service-Water Meter Rental
2 1"Meter $ 43.00 Per month;5750 deposi $ 43.00 Per month;$750 $ 43.00 Per month:$750
is r uired de sit is r uired deposit is r uired
Per month;$750 depositPer month;$750 Per month;$750
3 3"Meter 85.00 85.00 85.00
_ is r uired de sit is re uired de sit is required
Submittal of surety bond for transient occupancy For every 15 days bond For every 15 days bond For every 15 days bond
after ex iration of band 15.00 is late 15.00 is late 15.00 is late
4 LIBRARY
5 Lane Rooin Rental
6 Process reservation 8 1 hour cleaning 30 60 90 115.81 115.81 Per reservation 75.00
7 Audio/Visual Jsarje 5.00 Exclusive use 5.00 Exclusive use New fee
8 AudioAhsual Support 60 60 65.11 Per hour 65.11 Per hour 25.00 Per hour
9 POLICE
Vehicle release 77.25 77.25 77.25
Repossessed vehicle 15.00 15.00 15.00
DUI Fees
FB hourly rate of staff FB hourly rate of staff
Staff time who provides the who provides the 113.00 Per hour
service service
Blood test 113.00 Per test 113.00 Per test 113.00 Per test
Breath or urine lest 62.00 Per test 62.00 Per test 62.00 Per test
Refused blood test 57.00 Per refuse 57.00 Per refuse 57.00 Per refuse
False Alarm Char e
3-5 false alarms 50.00 Each 50.00 Each 50.00 Each
6 or more false alarms 100.00 Each 100.00 Each 100.00 Each
Any false alarm for which no alarm permit has 150.00 Eaxh plus false alarm 150.00 Eaxh plus false alarm 150.00 Eaxh plus false alarm
been issued fees shown above fees shown above fees shown above
Table A3.
Provided by the City.
'Total estimated time to provide each service.
°Derived by multiplying each position's FB Minute Rale by the number of minutes each position spent on each service,then summing the products.The result represents actual cost interm of labor to render each service.
'Third party fees,materials costs,exclusive fees,and/or penalty charges.
n Sum of actual cost in term of labor and third party fees,materials costs,exclusive use fees,andlor penalty charges.
'FY 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule.
a Fees recommended by City staff for adoption.To be filled by City staff.
Additional notes:
FB Hourly Rafe indicates that the service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rate of the position performing the service.
50
APPENDIX A: FB HOURLY RATE TABLES
MMuniFnancial 91
Table Al: City Clerk- Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-06 Budget
Personnel Cost(GF) $ 167,267
Operation Costs(GF) %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost 2 7,100 Cost
UF-Related Cost 2 44,708 26.73%s
Other Funding Sources
Total $ 219,075
Administration Personnel Cost 3 $ 12,398 7.41%s
Central Services Overhead" $ - 0.00%7
Average Annual Avereage Hourly UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Hours's Fully
Salary&Benefits a Salary&Benefits Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation" Labor Cost 14 Burdened
Rates 10 Allocation" Hourly
Labor Rates
16
26.73% 7.41% 0.00%
A B C D E F G H
A/2,080 Working Hrs A'Administration 1,600 Hrs
A'UF-Related Operation A'Central Services
(ora portion n 2,080 Personnel Cost (or a portion of 1,800
hrs based on FTE Cost Allocation Allocation Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) hrs based on FTE (F/G)
Job Classifications s percentage) Percentage Percentage Percentage percentage)
Administrative Secretary/Deputy City
Clerk(0.50 Full-Time Equivalent) $ 83,291 $ 42 $ 11,571 $ 3,209 $ - $ 58,071 900 $ 65
City Clerk 123,976 60 33,137 9,189 - 166,302 1,800 92
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget. GF stands for General Fund.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:10%of the City Clerk.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 26.73%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 7.41%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 0.00%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
52
Table A2: Finance-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Cost(GF)' $ 1,158,148
Operation Costs(GF) Y of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost 2 (477,051) Cost
UF-Related Cost 2 185,925 16.05%5
Other Funding Sources'
Total $ 867,022
Administration Personnel Cost $ 413,676 35.72%5
Central Services Overhead° $ - 0.00%7
Average Annual Avereage Hourly Salary UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Hours 15 Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits s &Benefits Rates 10 Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation it Labor Cost 14 Hourly Labor
Allocation 12 Rates 1B
16.05% 35.72% 0.00
A B C D E F G H
A/2,080 Working Hrs 1,800 Hrs
A'UF-Related A'Administration A'Central Services
(ora portion hrs Operation Cost Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) (ora portion 'E (F/G)
based onn FTE
hrs based onn FFTTE
s TE Allocation Percentage Allocation Percentage Percentage
Job Classifications percentage) percentage)
Account Clerk 11 $ 81,941 $ 39 $ 13,155 $ 29,268 $ - $ 124,364 1,800 $ 69
Administrative Secretary(0.50 Full-Time Equivalent) 43,291 42 6,950 15,463 65,704 900 73
Account Clerk III 89,751 43 14,408 32,058 - 136,217 1,800 76
Accounting Technician 91,086 43 14,623 32,535 138,243 1,800 76
Accountant 90,297 43 14,496 32,253 137,046 1,800 76
Admin/Info Services Manager 135,388 65 21,735 48,359 205,482 1,800 114
Financial Services Manager 139,357 67 22,372 49,777 211,505 1,800 118
Finance Director/Treasurer 207,419 100 33,298 74,088 314,805 1,800 175
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget. GF stands for General Fund.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the Finance Director/Treasurer,
80%of the Finance Services Manager,70%of the Admin/Info Services Manager.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 16.05%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 35.72%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 0.00%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
53
Table A3:Library-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Cost(OF) $ 2,594,424
Operation Costs(GF) %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost' 194,009 Cost
UF-Related Cost 3 799,959 30.83%s
Other Funding Sources'
Total $ 3,588,392
Administration Personnel Cost' $ 425,419 16.40%°
Central Services Overhead" $ 280,215 10.80%
Average Annual Avereage Hourly UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Hours t5 Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits a Salary&Benefits Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation 13 Labor Cost'" Hourly Labor
Rates 10 Allocation 12 Rates 18
30.83% 16.40% 10.80%
A B C D E F G H
A/2,080 Working Hrs A'Administration 1,800 Him
A'UF-Related A'Central Services
(ora portion n 2,080 Personnel Cost (ora portion FTE
Operation Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) (F/G)
firs based on FTE Allocation Percentage Allocation Percentage firs based onn FTE
Job Classifications' ercenta a Percents a percentage)
Library Assistant 11 $ 74,166 $ 36 $ 22,868 $ 12,161 $ 8,010 $ 117,206 1,800 $ 65
Library Assistant 111 78,651 38 24,251 12,897 8,495 124,294 1,800 69
Librarian 1 80,219 39 24,735 13,154 8,664 126,772 1,800 70
Administrative Secretary(0.98 Full-Time Equivalent) 82,782 41 25,525 13,574 8,941 130,822 1,764 74
Building Maintenance Worker(0.63 Full-Time Equivalent) 56,494 43 17,419 9,264 6,102 89,279 1,134 79
Librarian 11 91,200 44 28,120 14,954 9,850 144,125 1,800 80
Library Circulation Supervisor 95,822 46 29,546 15,712 10,349 151,429 1,800 84
Librarian 111 116,914 56 36,049 19,171 12,627 184,761 1,800 103
Library Technology Supervisor 130,524 63 40,245 21,403 14,097 206,270 1,800 115
Library Services Manager 139,389 67 42,979 22,856 15,055 220,279 1,800 122
City Librarian 186,796 90 57,596 30,630 20,175 295,197 1,800 164
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget. GF stands for General Fund.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the City Librarian,
90%of the Library Services Manager,50%of the Library Circulation Supervisor,and 50%of the Library Technology Supervisor.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 30.83%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 16.40%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 10.80%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
54
Table A4:Police -Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Cost(GF) $ 6,898,223
Operation Costs(GF) %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost' 399,953 Cost
UF-Related Cost 2 1,028,159 14.90%
Other Funding Sources'
Total $ 8,326,335
Administration Personnel Cost $ 335,202 4.86%
Central Services Overhead 4 $ 650,197 9.43
Average Annual Avereage Hourly UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits° Salary&Benefits Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation 13 Labor Cost 14 Hours's Hourly Labor Rates
Rates 1e Allocation' lr
14.90% 4.86% 9.43%
A B C D E F G H
A'UF-Related A'Administration A'Central Services
A/2,080 Working Hrs Operation Cost Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) 1,800 Hrs (F/G)
a Allocation Percenta a Allocation Percenta e
Job Classifications 9 Percentage g
Police Clerk II $ 83,876 $ 40 $ 12,501 $ 4,076 $ 7,906 $ 108,359 1,800 $ 60
Administrative Secretary 95,308 46 14,205 4,631 8,983 123,128 1,800 68
Communication Dispatcher 99,927 48 14,894 4,856 9,419 129,095 1,800 72
Police Records Supervisor 104,593 50 15,589 5,082 9,858 135,123 1,600 75
Police Officer 164,556 79 24,527 7,996 15,510 212,589 1,800 118
Police Sergeant 188,228 90 28,055 9,146 17,742 243,171 1,800 135
Police Chief 230,609 111 34,372 11,206 21,736 297,923 1,800 166
Police Commander 236,609 114 35,266 11,497 22,302 305,674 1,800 170
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget. GF stands for General Fund.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cast includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the Police Chief,
100%of the Police Records Supervisor.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 14.90%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 4.86%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 9.43%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
55
Table AS:Fire-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Cost(GF)' $ 7,714,996
Operation Costs(GF) %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost' 340,700 Cost
UF-Related Cost' 1,178,504 15.28%s
Other Funding Sources'
Total It 9,234,200
Administration Personnel Cost $ 622,755 8.07%e
Central Services Overhead' $ 721,092 9.15%'
Average Annual Avereage Hourly Salary UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Hours 15 Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits' &Benefits Rates 10 Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation" Labor Cost" Hourly Labor Rates
Allocation 1' 1.
15.28% 8.07% 9.35%
A B C D E F G H
A2,080 Working His A'Administration 1,800 Hrs
A'UF-Related A'Central Services
(or a portion of 2,080 his Operation Cost Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) (or a portion of 1,800 (F/G)
e based on FTE Allocation Percentage Allocation percentage his based on FTE
Job Classifications rcenta a Percents a percentage)
Senior Typist Clerk(0.75 Full-Time Equivalent) $ 47,707 $ 31 $ 7,287 $ 3,851 $ 4,459 $ 63,304 1,350 $ 47
Administrative Support Officer 111,244 53 16,993 8,980 10,398 147,614 1,800 82
Firefighter 161,534 78 24,675 13,039 15,098 214,346 1,800 119
Fire Inspector 168,301 81 25,709 13,585 15,730 223,326 1,800 124
Fire Mechanic 169,479 81 25,889 13,680 15,641 224,889 1,800 125
Shifted Inspector(1.05%Fire Inspector's Rate) 130
Fire Captain 181,418 87 27,713 14,644 16,956 240,731 1,800 134
Deputy Fire Chief 188,217 90 28,751 15,193 17,592 249,753 1,800 139
Division Chief 193,915 93 29,621 15,653 18,125 257,314 1,600 143
Battalion Chief 209,146 101 31,948 16,882 19,548 277,524 1,800 154
Fire Chief 219,694 106 33,559 17,734 20,534 291,521 1,800 162
Fire Marshall 228,911 110 34,967 18,478 21,395 303,751 1,800 169
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget. GF stands for General Fund.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the Division Chief,
100%of the Fire Chief,and 100%of the Battalion Chief.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividingAdministration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 15.28%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 8.07%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 9.35%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
56
Table A6:Engineering-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Cost(GF) $ 1,610,228
Operation Costs(GF) %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost' 114,725 Cost
UF-Related Cost] 531,852 33.03%s
Other Funding Sources
Total $ 2,256,805
Administration Personnel Cost' $ 395,610 24.57%s
Central Services Overhead 4 $ 176,232 10.94%r
Average Annual Avereage Hourly UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Hours 15 Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits' Salary&Benefits Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation'3 Labor Cost'4 Hourly Labor
Rates ° Allocation 12 Rates 1°
33.03% 24.57% 10.94%
A B C D E F G H
A/2,080 Working Hrs A•UF-Related A•Administration A•Centra
Irl based onl Services 1,800 Hrs
(or a portion of 2,080 Personnel Cost ora a
Operation Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) ( P rtion of 1,800 (FIG)
Allocation Percentage Allocation hrs based on FTE
Job Classifications' Percentage) 9 Percentage Percentage percentage)
Administrative Secretary $ 80,308 $ 39 $ 26,525 $ 19,731 $ 8,789 $ 135,353 1,800 $ 75
Secretary 79,834 38 26,369 19,614 8,737 134,554 1,800 7b
Engineering Technician II 93,761 45 30,969 23,036 10,262 158,027 1,800 66
Public Works Inspector 102,242 49 33,770 25,119 11,190 172,321 1,800 96
Senior Public Works Inspector 113,602 55 37,522 27,910 12,433 191,468 1,800 106
Project Manager/GIS Coordinator 122,739 59 40,540 30,155 13,433 206,868 1,800 115
Assistant Engineer 135,818 65 44,860 33,369 14,865 228,911 1,800 127
Associate Engineer(0.75 Full-Time Equivalent) 101,874 65 33,649 25,029 11,150 171,701 1,350 127
Program Manager(0.55 FuIFTime Equivalent) 78,559 69 25,948 19,301 8,598 132,405 990 134
Senior Engineer 163,481 79 53,997 40,165 17,892 275,535 1,800 153
Assistant Public Works Director 194,312 93 64,180 47,740 21,267 327,499 1,800 162
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget. GF stands for General Fund.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the Program Manager,
100%of the Assistant Public Works Director,100%of the Project Manager/GIS Coordinator.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 33.03%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 24.57%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 10.94%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
57
Table A7: Planning-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007.08 Budget
Personnel Cost(GF)' $ 723,454
Operation Costs(GF) %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost 2 40,040 Cost
UF-Related Cost' 113,066 15.63%s
Other Funding Sources
Total $ 876,560
Administration Personnel Cost' $ 194,474 26.88%s
Central Services Overhead 4 $ 68,450 9.46%'
Average Annual Avereage Hourly UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits' Salary&Benefits Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation 13 Labor Cost 10 Hours 15 Hourly Labor
Rates t0 Allocation" Rates 1B
15.63% 26.88% 9.46%
A B C D E F G H
A'UF-Related A'Administration A'Central Services
A/2,080 Working Hrs Operation Cost Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) 1,800 Hrs (F/G)
Job ClassificationsAllocation Percentage Allocation Percentage Percentage
Administrative Secretary $ 76,609 $ 37 $ 11,973 $ 20,594 $ 7,248 $ 116,424 1,800 $ 65
Zoning Technician 90,210 43 14,099 24,250 8,535 137,093 1,800 76
Planner 114,787 55 17,940 30,856 10,861 174,444 1,800 97
Senior Planner 141,778 68 22,158 38,112 13,414 215,462 1,800 120
Community Development Director 194,474 93 30,394 52,277 18,400 295,545 1,800 164
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget. GF stands for General Fund.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the Community Development Director.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 15.63%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12)Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 26.88%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13)Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 9.46%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
58
Table A8: Building Inspection-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Cost(GF)' $ 704,282
Operation Costs(GF) %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost 21,100 Cost
UF-Related Cost' 109,529 15.55%s
Other Funding Sources'
Total $ 834,911
Administration Personnel Cost' $ 158,685 22.53%'
Central Services Overhead" $ 65,198 9.26%'
Average Annual Avereage Hourly UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits 9 Salary&Benefits Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation" Labor Cost 14 Hours is Hourly Labor
Rates lo Allocation 12 Rates"
15.55% 22.53% 9.26%
A B C D E F G H
A'UF-Related A'Administration A'Central Services
A/2,080 Working Hrs Operation Cost Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) 1,800 Hrs (F/G)
Job Classifications' Allocation Percentage Allocation Percentage Percentage
Permit Technician $ 91,556 $ 44 $ 14,239 $ 20,629 $ 8,476 $ 134,899 1,800 $ 75
Building Inspector 119,776 58 18,627 26,987 11,088 176,479 1,800 98
Senior Building Inspector 130,479 63 20,292 29,399 12,079 192,249 1,800 107
Chief Building Official 158,685 76 24,678 35,754 14,690 233,807 1,800 130
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget. GF stands for General Fund.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the Building Official.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 15.55%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 22.53%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 9.26%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
59
Table A9:Parks&Recreation-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Coat' $ 3,577629
Operation Costa %of Personnel
Non-LIF Ratted Cost2.113,937 Cast
UF-Related Coat' 25.400 0.71%`
Capital Outlay' 7,000
Total $ 2,146,337
Admnisbation Personnel Cost' $ 446,749 1249.7.`'
Central Services Overhead s $ 447,527 12.51%'
Average Annual Avereage Hourly Salary UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Hours Is Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits' 8 Benefits Rates Is Cost Allocation" Personnel Coat Overhead Allocation 13 Labor Coal t4 Hourly Labor
Allocation 13 Rates;Is
0.71% 1249% 12.51%
A B O D E F 6 H
Al2,080 Working Him A•UF-Related A'Administration A'Central Services 1,800 His
I. portion of 2,0801vs O ation Cost Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+DIE) (or a portion of 1,800 (F/G)
based on FTE Per his based on FTE
Job Classifications s roams
Allocation Percentage Allocation Percentage Percentage percentage)
Parks
Tree Maintenance Worker $ 82,721 $ 40 $ 587 $ 10,330 $ 10,348 $ 103,986 1,800 $ 58
Ground Equipment Repair Worker 82,542 40 586 10,307 10,325 103,760 1,800 58
Park Lea dnorker-Landscape 90,392 43 642 11,288 11,307 113,628 1,800 63
Park Maintenance Worker It 90,361 43 642 11,284 11,303 113,589 1,800 63
Administrative Secretary 92,086 44 654 11,499 11,519 115,758 1,800 64
Irrigation Repair Specialist 93,543 45 664 11,681 11,701 117,589 1,800 85
Tree Worker 95,210 46 676 11,889 11,910 119,685 1.800 66
Park Leedm ker-Maintenance 99,485 48 706 12,423 12,445 125,059 1,800 69
Tree Leadworker 104,923 50 745 13,102 13,125 131,895 1,800 73
Parks Supervisor 129,918 62 922 16,223 16,251 163,315 1,800 91
Parks Superintendent 135,073 65 959 16,867 16,896 169,795 1,800 W
Recreation
Building Attendant(0.80 Full-Time Equivalent) 44.656 17 317 5,576 5,586 56,135 1,440 39
Senior Typist Clerk 76,274 37 542 9,525 9,541 95,881 1,800 53
Recreation Coordnator 75,426 36 536 9,419 9,435 94,815 1,800 53
Account Ci k III 79,907 38 567 9,978 9,996 100,448 1,800 55
Secretary 87,643 d2 622 10,944 10,963 110,173 1,800 61
Recreabon Supervisor 118,710 57 843 14,824 14,849 149,226 1,800 83
Parks&Recreation
Parks&Recreation Director 192,966 93 1,370 24,096 24,138 242,570 1,800 135
(1)From City's 200712008 Budget.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%Parks Supervisor,100%Parks Supervisor,and 100%Recreation
Supervisor,and 100%Parks&Recreation Director.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full,-time employee.
(11)Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 0.71%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12)Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 12.49%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 12.51%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacationlholiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
60
Table A10:Water-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Cost $ 1,795,656
Operation Costs %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cost' 7,889,538 Cost
UF-Related Cost' 329,913 18.37%e
Capital Outlay' 132,500
Total S 10,147,607
Administration Personnel Cost 3 $ 182,858 10.18%e
Central Services Overhead" $ 792,419 44.13%'
Average Annual Avereage Hourly Salary UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Hours 15 Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits v &Benefits Rates 10 Cost Allocation 11 Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation 13 Labor Cost 14 Hourly Labor
Allocation 12 Rates 1°
18.17% 10.18Ne 44.13%
A B C D E F G H
A/2,080 Working His A•UF-Related A'Administration A'Central Services 1,800 His
(or a portion of 2,080 him Operation Cost Personnel Cost Overhead Albcalion A+C+D+E (or a portion of 1,800
based on FTE Allocation Percentage Allocation Percentage Percentage ( ) him based on FTE (F/G)
Job Classifications° percentage) 9 g 9
Percentage)
Water Meter Reader $ 88,038 $ 42 $ 16,175 $ 8,965 $ 38,851 $ 152,029 1,800 $ 84
Laborer 91,275 44 16,770 9,295 40,279 157,619 1,800 88
Maintenance Worker 92,105 44 16,922 9,379 40,646 159,052 1,800 89
Water Quality and Meter Worker 98,320 47 18,064 10,012 43,388 169,785 1,800 94
Water Maintenance Leadworker 102,337 49 18,802 10,421 45,161 176,722 1,800 98
Water Service Worker 104,599 50 19,218 10,652 46,159 180,628 1,800 100
Maintenance Electrician(0.50 Full-Time Equivalent) 52,556 51 9,656 5,352 23,193 90,757 900 101
Water Quality Supervisor 115,359 55 21,195 11,747 50,908 199,209 1,800 111
Water Supervisor 122,660 59 22,536 12,491 54,130 211,817 1,800 11a
Asst Water Superintendent 128.405 62 23,592 13,076 56,665 221,737 1,800 123
Public Works Superintendent 182,858 88 33,596 18,621 80,695 315,770 1,800 176
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget.
(2)Operation Costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the Public Works Superintendent.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 18.37%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 10.18%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 44.13%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
61
Table All:Sewer-Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
FY 2007-08 Budget
Personnel Cost' $ 1,590,974
Operation Costs %of Personnel
Non-UF Related Cos,' 2,913,769 Cost
UF-Related Cost' 673,115 42.31%°
Capital Outlay79,000
Total $ 5,256,858
Administration Personnel Costa $ 130,628 8.21%°
Central Services Overhead" $ 410,504 25.80%'
Average Annual Avereage Hourly Salary UF-Related Operation Administration Central Services Fully Burdened Productive Hours 15 Fully Burdened
Salary&Benefits° &Benefits Rates 10 Cost Allocation" Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation" Labor Cost 14 Hourly Labor
Allocation" Rates 1B
42.31% 8.21% 25.80%
A B C D E F G H
A/2,080 Working Hrs1,800 Hrs
A'UF-Related A`Administration A`Central Services
(ora portion Operation Cost Personnel Cost Overhead Allocation (A+C+D+E) (ora portion of (FIG)
° hrs based onn FTE FTE Allocation Percentage Allocation Percentage Percentage hrs based on FTE
Job Classifications percentage percentage)
Laborer $ 79,345 $ 38 $ 33,570 $ 6,515 $ 20,473 $ 139,902 1,800 $ 78
Maintenance Worker 92,596 45 39,176 7,603 23,892 163,266 1,800 91
Pump Station Leadworker 103,947 50 43,978 8,535 26,820 183,280 1,800 102
Street and Sewer Leadworker 104,557 50 44,236 8,585 26,978 184,356 1,800 102
Maintenance Electrician(0.50 Full-Time Equivalent) 52,745 51 22,316 4,331 13,609 93,001 900 103
Management Analyst 111,206 53 47,049 9,131 28,693 196,080 1,800 109
Street and Sewer Supervisor 121,094 58 51,233 9,943 31,245 213,514 1,800 119
Asst Street&Sewer Superintendent 130,628 63 55,267 10,725 33,705 230,325 1,800 128
(1)From City's 2007/2008 Budget.
(2)Operation costs funded by the General Fund are classified into two groups:Non-UF Related Cost and UF-Related Cost. OF stands for User Fee.
(3)Administration Personnel Cost includes the salary and benefits of general management personnel as follows:100%of the Assistant Street&Sewer Superintendent.
(4)From Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the MuniFinancial.
(5)Derived by dividing UF-Related Operation Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(6)Derived by dividing Administration Personnel Cost by the Personnel Cost.
(7)Derived by dividing Central Services Overhead by the Personnel Cost.
(8)Staff who is involved in rendering services,directly or indirectly,to the public.
(9)Fiscal year end 2008 salary&benefit costs.
(10)Average hourly salary&benefit costs per full-time employee.
(11) Derived by multiplying the UF-related operation cost allocation percentage of 42.31%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(12) Derived by multiplying the administration personnel cost allocation percentage of 8.21%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(13) Derived by multiplying the central services overhead allocation percentage of 25.80%by the average annual salary and benefits.
(14)Derived by summing average annual salary&benefits,operation costs allocation,and central services overhead allocation.
(15)Generally productive hours are derived by 2,080 annual working hours minus an estimated 280 vacation/holiday hours.
(16)Derived by Fully Burdened Labor Cost divided by Productive Hours.
62
APPENDIX B: MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
SMuniFnancia! 63
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery Fee Current Fee Fees Recommended by City Staff
'77,77 Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
�j k,
2 Photocopy
3 Copy of election documents $ 64.52 Per document New fee
4 Search and retrieve election documents that are 5 69.29 Per document New fee
years or older and are stored inside the City Hall
5 Search and retrieve election documents that are 5 69.29 Per document New fee
years or older and are stored outside the City Hall
6 Copy of other documents
7 Black&white copies(8 1/2"x 11"or 8 1/2"x 11"or 1.08 Per page 0.15 Per page
11"x 17")
8 Black&white copies(paper size other than 8 1/2"x 1.08 Per page Actual cost
11"or 8 1/2"x 11"or 11"x 17")
9 Color copies(8 1/2"x 11"or 8 1/2"x 11"or 11"x 1.08 Per page Actual cost
17")
10 Color copies(paper size other than 8 1/2"x 11"or E 1
1/2"x 11"or 11"x 17" .08 Per page Actual cost)
11 Audiotape/Video Copies(except for Police)
12 Audiotape Copies
13 If blank tape supplied 15.40 Perpeeplus postage cost if 5.25 Per tape
.Ppl!,%b
14 If no tape supplied 15.40 Per tape,plus cost of the tape and 8.50 Per tape
postage cost if applicable)
15 Video Copies
16 Search,retrieve,and send relevant data to vendor 78.46 Per VHS plus Lucas Photo service 20.00 Per VHS
VHS copies char for making rge ,$ 00
17 Search,retrieve,and send relevant data to vendor DVD copies char
Per DVD service 25.00 Per DVD
0,plus Lucas Photo
for making ge $15.01
18 Research for documents other than election 92.39 Per hour New fee
documents
19 Document Certification 15.40 5.25 Each
20 Filing of Circulators of an Initiative This fee is set at$200 by the State
of California
21 Filing of Nomination Papers 92.39 Per candidate 25.00 Per candidate
Council Chambers Audio/Visual set-up fee(set up
22 equipment for organizations requested to use the
Council Chambers)
23 Audio/Visual equipment set-up 32.26 Per 1/2 hour New fee
24 Desktop Suort 46.19 Per 1/2 hour New fee
MOKPO
25
WMT�l�M
Z
26 Business License
27 Process new business license application $ 32.54 $ 35.00
28 Process renewal business license application 21.03 New fee
29 Duplicate business license 5.76 10.00
30 Returned Check
64
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
ServicelApplication Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee Z Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
31 1st check This fee is set at$25 by the Civil 25.00
Code 1719
32 2nd and each subsequent check This fee is set at$35 by the Civil New fee
Code 1719
33 Water Related Services
34 Process new water application 8.83 New fee
35 Water Service Turn-On
36 8:00 AM to 3:15 PM,Monday thru Frida 56.48 No Charge
37 3:16 PM to 3:30 PM,Monday thru Fridal 56.48 20.00
38 3:31 PM to 7:59 PM,Monday thru FridaN 81.57 60.00
39 Saturday,Sunday,Holiday 106.66 60.00
40 Renewal Fee
If renewal fee is not paid within 30 If renewal fee is not paid within 30
41 8:00 AM-3:15 PM-Monday thru Friday 50.17 days of billing,fee will be 1.5 times 35.00 days of billing,fee will 1.5 times
the billed amount the billed amount.
If renewal fee is not paid within 30 If renewal fee is not paid within 30
42 3:16 PM-3:30 PM-Monday thru Friday 50.17 days of billing,fee will be 1.5 times 45.00 days of billing,fee will 1.5 times
the billed amount the billed amount.
If renewal fee is not paid within 30 If renewal fee is not paid within 30
43 3:31 PM-4:50 PM-Monday thru Friday 75.26 days of billing,fee will be 1.5 times 60.00 days of billing,fee will 1.5 times
the billed amount the billed amount.
44 Water service turn-on deposit if delinquent on City 16.10 5000 Or 2 months estiamted
.
Water Account in previous 12 months consumption,whichever is greater
45 Flow Test
46 5/8"through 1" 286.12 Plus$44.24 for materials,including 50.00
water,to run the test
47 1 1/2"and 2" 286.12 Plus$44.24 for materials,including 80.00
water,to run the test
48 Over 2" 279.81 Plus$44.24 for materials,including100.00 Minimum;if over$100,cost of
water,to run the test testin lus 15%
49 Water Line Installation
50 5/8"bypass meter 3,255.75 350.00
51 3/4"service with meter 3,249.45 Plus materials costs of$1,609.62 4,100.00
52 1"service with meter 3,249.45 Plus materials costs of$1,649.62 4,135.00
53 1 1/2"service with meter 3,249.45 Plus materials costs of$2,394.76 5,280.00
54 2"service with meter 3,249.45 Plus material costs of$2,524.76 5,420.00
55 If larger than 2"or a length of more than 60 feel Actual labor and materials costs Cost plus 15%
56 Meter Upgrade
57 To 3/4"meter 188.65 Plus$132 for a new meter 223.00
material cost
58 To 1"meter 198.44 Plus$162 for a new meter 254.00
material cost
59 Work on City Water System 60.00 Permit;$1,500 bond 60.00 Permit;$1,500 bond or deposit
65
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee 2 Fees Recommended by City Staff'
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
6o Maintenance of Water in Fire Protection System 1.00 Per month per inch of pip diameter, 1.00 Per month per inch of pip diameter,
with$2 minimum charge with$2 minimum charge
61 LIBRARY
62 Black&white copies&printouts from Internet or $ 1.08 Per page $ 0.15 Per page
Database
63 Color copies&printouts from Internet or Database 1.08 Per page New fee
64 Outside system book loan Cost charged by the lending library Cost charged by the lending library
65 PLS Consortium Controlled Fees
66 Reserve or hold materials charge 0.75 Per item 0.75 Per item
67 Overdue fee for adult 0.25 Per item 0.25 Per item
68 Overdue fee for child 0.15 Per item 0.15 Per item
69 Maximum fee 6.00 Per book 6.00 Per book
70 Lost book replacement 5.00 Per item plus replacement cost of 5.00 per item plus replacement cost of
the item the item
71 Lost card replacement 1.00 Per replacement 1.00
72 LICE` ft
73 Police reports $ 21.31 Per report plus materials $ 1.00 Per page;maximum fee$16
74 Fingerprint rolling 30.10 20.00
75 Audio tapes 45.03 29.00
76 Videotapes,CDs,DVDs 75.07 43.00
77 Photographs 75.07 Per roll 29.00 Per roll
78 Clearance Letter 15.05 12.00
1.5 times the FB hourly rate of
either Police Officer or Police
79 Security service(outside details) Sergeant depending on who 88.00 Per hour
provides the service,minimum 4
hours
80 Permits
81 Overnight parking 53.84 10.00
82 Alarm 141.98 Fee includes 2 false alarm calls 49.50 Fee includes 2 false alarm calls
without charge without charge
83 Amusement/Entertainment 94.85 108.00
84 Massage o erator
85 New application 359.62 250.00
86 Sale or transfer 306.27 150.00
87 Renewal 182.69 100.00
88 Massae ractitioner
89 New application 348.11 250.00
90 Renewal 196.48 100.00
91 Taxi operator
92 New application 1 38.08 150.00
93 Renewal 20.81 75.00
94 Taxi driver
951 New application 60.34 150.00
66
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee 2 Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
96 Renewal 54.58 75.00
97 Taxi Cab Inspection 67.55 New fee
For processing application and
planning the event;If applicable, Per application fee plus$340 per
98 Special events/Street closing 339.64 additional fee is charged base on 115.00 day City facility fee plus$88 per
hourly rate for security service and hour Police Officer for traffic control
equipment usage
99 Booking fees As set by County As set by Count
too Bicycle license No charge No charge
101 Solicitors 275.95 For investigation plus fingerprinting 5200 For investigation plus fingerprinting
.
fee fees
toe Concealed weapon 204.42 For investigation 52.00 For investigation
103 Unruly gathering 161.20 Per hour Cost of hours of Officer response
104 try
toy Care Facilities Ins ection
106 Pre-inspection of licensed community care facility
107 25 persons or less $ 50.00 Fee is set by State Statue $ 50.00
108 Over 25 persons 100.00 Fee is set by State Statue 100.00
tog Residential care facilities 233.00 Fee is set by State Statue 233.00
110 Lar a farrfily day care 138.72 117.00
111 Hospital/Institution 1,999.77 387.00
112 Skilled Nursina Facilities 510.93 New fee
113 Re-inspection
114 Second 76.68 Per re-inspection 70.00 Per inspection
115 Third and each subsequent re-inspection 118.44 Per re-inspection 106.00 Per inspection
116 Construction Charges
Per hour charged for administrative
117 Building or planning plan check 146.41 service,plus actual consultant 117.00 Per hour
costs
Per hour charged for administrative
118 Expedite building or planning plan check 146.41 service and minimum 2 hours; 216.00 Per hour
plus actual consultant costs
119 Consultation and planning 172.66 Per hour 154.00 Per hour
120 Fire alarms stems
121 Monitoring system 147.52 58.00
122 Manuals stem 147.52 117.00
123 Automatics stem 271.59 233.00
124 Combinations stem 395.66 281.00
125 Fire extinguishinq system 209.55 233.00
126 Standpipe system 271.59 233.00
127 Storage tank above or below round 147.52 233.00
128 Sprinkler systems
67
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee= Fees Recommended by City Staff a
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
Flat fee including 2 inspections
permit;without charge;for the third and Per note:phase
129 One or two family dwelling fire sprinkler system 395.66 each subsequent inspection,fee is 350.00 P (
(NEPA 13D) based on the FB hourly rate of staff inspections billed at$117 per hour)
who renders the service
130 Fire pump 147.52 117.00
Flat fee including 3 inspections
Residential or commercial fire sprinkler system
(NEPA 13 or 13R) without charge if welding included;
131 643.79 for the third and each subsequent 467.00 Per permit;(note:phase
Permit-Single Story(incl.T.I.) inspection,fee is based on the FB inspections billed at$117 per hour)
Permit-Mufti Story hourly rate of staff who renders the
service
132 Fire service line inspection 147.52 117.00
133 Alternate means of protection review 168.75 Per hour 154.00 Per hour
134 Miscellaneous Charges and Permits
135 Vegetation management inspection 271.59 Fee is only applicable to the Town 233.00 Plus 20%of contractor's fee
of Hillsborough
136 Change of use inspection(usually triggered by new 144.92 64.00
business license
137 Standby Service
138 Firefighter 119.08 Per hour,minimum 3 hours 110.00 Per hour minimum 3 hours
139 Fire Captain 133.74 Per hour,minimum 3 hours New fee
140 Battalion Chief 154.18 Per hour,minimum 3 hours New fee
Engine Company(Engine Company includes 1 Fire Per hour,minimum 3 hours;plus
141 Captain and 3 Firefighters) 490.98 fire apparatus cost of$1,232 per 318.00 Per hour;minimum 3 hours
day,as set by the State
142 Photographs from investigations Actual cost Cost of reproduction
143 Fire hydrant flow tests 135.79 Per hydrant 117.00 Per hydrant
144 Work without a construction permit Double permit fees Double the permit fees
FB hourly rate of staff who renders
145 Emergency response costs for DUI the service,plus fire apparatus cos Cost depends on the hourly rate of
of$1,232 per day,as set by the staff that renders the service
State
FB hourly rate of staff who renders Cost depends on the hourly rate of
1a6 Hazardous materials clean-up/response the service,plus fire apparatus cos staff that renders the service plus
of$1,232 per day,as set by the actual equipment and materials
State costs
147 General Permits
148 Christmas tree lot 138.72 73.00
149 Aerosol products 231.77 187.00
150 Apartments,Hotels,and Motels
151 10 units or less 158.73 85.00
152 11-25 units 192.16 104.00
153 26 units or more 225.60 141.00
154Batte system 417.88 187.00
155 Carnivals and fairs 386.86 338.00
156 Combustible fiber storage 231.77 136.00
157 Combustible material storage 231.77 187.00
68
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery Fee Current Fee Z Fees Recommended by City Staff a
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
158 Compressed gasses 231.77 187.00
159 Commercial rubbish-handling operation 231.77 187.00
160 Cryogens 231.77 187.00
161 Dry clean plants 231.77 187.00
162 Dust-producing operations 231.77 187.00
163 Ex osives or blasting agents 417.88 237.00
164 Fire hydrants and water control valves 228.85 120.00
165 Fireworks 417.88 196.00
166 Flammable or combustible liquids 417.88 388.00
167 Hazardous materials 417.88 489.00
168 High-plied combustible storage
169 20,000 square feet or less 417.88 276.00
170 Over 20,000 square feet 541.95 489.00
171 Hot-work operations 231.77 187.00
172 Liquefied petroleum gasses 417.88 187.00
173 Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in 417 88 187.00
assemblybuildings
174 Live audiences 417.88 187.00
175 Lumber yards storing in excess of 100,000 board feel 324.82 288.00
176 Magnesium working 231.77 162.00
177 Exhibits&Trade Shows
178 Display booth 231.77 170.00
179 For assembly with open flame 231.77 170.00
180 Display fuel powered equipment 231.77 170.00
181 Motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations 192.97 302.00
182 Open burning 231.77 117.00
183 Organic coatina 231.77 187.00
184 Oven,industrial baking and drying 192.97 162.00
185 Parade floats 231.77 170.00
186 Places of assembly 405.47 363.00
187 Production facilities 386.86 338.00
188 Pyrotechnical andspecial effects material 417.88 302.00
189 Radioactive materials 231.77 136.00
190 Refrigeration equipment 324.82 288.00
191 Repair garage 242.63 187.00
192 Spraying and dippinq 242.63 187.00
193 Tents,canopies,and temporary membrane 352.91 196.00
structures
194 Tire storage 231.77 162.00
195 Wood products 231.77 162.00
196 Amusement Buildings 242.63 New fee
197 Aviation Facilities 438.04 New fee
.. o
198 ENGINEERING` a ,�y '
199 Encroachment Permits
200 Sewer lateral test $ 287.23 $ 170.00
201 Sewer lateral replacement w/o sidewalk 1 287.23 256.00
202 Water service connection w/o sidewalk 435.42 341.00
69
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee' Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
203 Fires stem connection w/o sidewalk 534.82 409.00
204 Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 sq.ft. 368.32 Plus$0.30 for each sq.ft.over 200 307.00 Plus$0.30 for each sq.ft.over 200
sq.ft. ft.
205 Sidewalk closure/Pedestrian protection 179.47 159.00
206 Traffic control 243.96 182.00
207 Block party(includes up to 6 barricades) 192.82 Plus$5 for each additional 50.00 Plus$5 for each addt'I barricade
barricade over 6 over 6
208 Parking permit 127.19 Plus$10 per space per day or 80.00 Plus$2 per space per day or meter
meter rates rates
209 Special Encroachment Permits
210 Permanent structures such as retaining walls and 528.47 369.00
fences
211 Right-of-way user charge 43.90 Plus$2 per sq.ft.in excess of 100 2,00 Per sq.ft.in excess of 100 sq.ft.
sq.ft.
212 Non-permanent installations such as tables,chairs,
and planters
213 New permit 437.50 284.00
214 General Fees
Demolition permit(in addition to any Building
215 Department-issued Demolition or Construction
permit)
216 Includes sewer and water replacement 1,118.78 903.00
217 Add fire line 337.50 227.00
218 Add curb drain/curb drain installation 159.78 170.00
219 Add sidewalk closure 199.25 159.00
22o Add PG&E 231.54 227.00
221 Address chane 304.16 284.00
222 Transportation fee 145.99 85.00
223 Building moving 299.06 100.00
224 Deposits Or Bonds For Encroachment Permit
Work
225 Openings in public right-of-way not in sidewalk or 300.00 Per connection 300.00 300.00
street
226
Openings in public right-of-way in sidewalk but not in 8'00 Per sq.ft.in sidewalk area;$300 Per sq.ft.in sidewalk area;$300
street minimum(refundable bond) 8.00 minimum
227 Street roadway opening(AC pavement restoration) 8.00 Per sq.ft.in paved area;$750 8.00 Per sq.ft.in paved area;$750
minimum refundable bond minimum
228 Water main modification 1,500.00 Per connection(refundable bond) 1,500.00 Per connection 1,500.00 Per connection
229 Sewer main modification 1,000.00 Per connection(refundable bond) 1,000.00 Per connection 1,000.00 Per connection
230 Storm drain modification 1,000.00 Per connection(refundable bond) 1,000.00 Per connection 1,000.00 Per connection
231 Subdivision Maps
232 Lot line adjsutment 625.61 For staff time;plus actual 555.00
consultant cost
70
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee 2 Fees Recommended by City Staff'
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
233 Lot combination 996.84 For staff time;plus actual 828,00
consultant cost
Plus$200 for each additional lot in Plus$107 for each additional lot
234 Subdivision map 1,251.21 excess of 5 lots;plus actual 1,218.00 over 5
consultant cost
Plus$500 for each additional unit
235 Condominium map 2,000.82 in excess of 4 units,plus actual 1,765.00 Plus$265 for each unit over 4
consultant cost
236 Zoning Fees To Be Collected By Planning
Department
237 Design review
238 Single-Family dwelling 203.72 97.00
239 All others Actual consultant cost and cost of 13600 Plus$350 if streetscape installation
Cit .
staff time involved
240 Environmental review
eat Traffic&parking studies Actual consultant cost and cost of 148.00
Cit staff time
242 Creek enclosures 1,181.95 625.00
243 Drainage and utilities 693.85 148.00
244 Illegal si n removal 96.56 52.00 Per si n
245 P4„4�. „
246 Pre-Applications
50%of fee will be credited toward 50%of fee will be credited toward
247 Preliminary plan check of new construction $ 242.28 required application fees if and $ 185.00 required application fees if and
when project is submitted as a when project is submitted as a
complete application complete application
50%of fee will be credited toward 50%of fee will be credited toward
zae Preliminary plan check of remodel 145.37
required application fees if and required application fees if and
00
when project is submitted as a 125. when project is submitted as a
complete application complete application
las Applications
250 Antenna exception 948.83 25.00
Ambiguity/Determine Hearing before Planning
251 Commission(applies to Planning,Fire,and Building 884.48 490.00
requests)
252 Amendment/Extension to permits 307.86 220.00
253 Appeal to City Council from Planning Commission 715.61 250.00
decisions(does not include noticing costs)
254 Conditional use permit 1,395.97 950.00
255 Condominium
256 4 units or less 1,342.22 1,010.00
257 5 units or more 1,576.43 1,225.00
258 Desi n Review
259 New construction 902.70 Minimum deposit of$800 is 600.00
required
71
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery Fee' Current Fee: Fees Recommended by City Staff'
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
26o Addition 887.39 Minimum deposit of$800 is 580.00
required
261 Amendment 773.02 Minimum deposit of$800 is 425.00
required
262 Handling fee 447.32 290.00
263 Information submittalto Planning Commission 194.33 200.00
264 Fence exception 821.72 670.00
265 General plan amendment 2,129.42 1,400.00
266 Minor modification/Hillside area construction permit 327.31 250.00
267 Rezoning 1,947.90 1,225.00
268 Second unit amnesty permit 130.00 Per hour;$400 deposit is required 132.00 Per hour;a deposit of$400 is
re uired
269 Special use permit 1,395.97 950.00
270 Variance 743.52 950.00
271 Environmental
272 Cate oricaI exception 68.41 60.00
273 Initial study 865.37 120.00
274 Negative declaration 2,088.87 1,340.00
275 Mitigated declaration and/or with a responsible 2,492.67 1,565.00
agency
Contract cost plus 35%of contract
276 Environmental impact report for administrative service;Deposit 35%of contract,deposit to be
amount is to be determined by the determined by City Planner
City Planner
277 Environmental posting fee,Negative Declaration and 239.40 150.00
E
278 Fish&Game fee for Negative Declaration,whether 1,800.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.4 1,800.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.4
mitigated or not
279 Fish&Game fee for Environmental Impact Report 2,500.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.5 2,500.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.5
280 County Clerk processing fee for Fish&Game 50.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.6 50.00 Fish&Game Code,Section 711.6
281 Noticing
282 R-11 and R-22 140.10 115.00
283 All other Districts 140.10 115.00
284 R-1 Design Review
285 Residential 193.97 170.00
286 All other Districts 193.97 170.00
287 Minor modification/Hillside area construction permits 213.92 947.33 170.00
288 General plan amendment 472.54 Plus$675 for newspaper ads;$13 1,080.00
for 100 cards;$46 for postage
28s Rezoning 472.54 Plus$675 for newspaper ads;$13 1,080.00
for 100 cards;$46 for postage
72
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery Fee Current Fee 2 Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
Plus$450 for newspaper ads;
290 Environmental impact report 472.54 $15.60 for 60 cards;$55.20 for 1,090.00
postage
291 City Council appeal 85.05 30.00
292 Second unit amnesty 101.20 55.00
293 Signs
294 Sign Variance 1,343.53 1,010.00
295 Signs
296 50 sq.ft.or less 32.34 28.00
297 Over 50 sq.ft.but less than 200 sq.ft. 64.68 56.00
298 Over 200 sq.ft. 95.20 82.00
299 BUILDING'
300 Building Permit Fees Based on Total Valuation
301 $1 to$500 $ 34.50 $ 34.50
For the first$500 plus$4.80 for For the first$500 plus$4.80 for
302$501 to$2,000 34.50 each addt'I$100 or fraction thereof 34.50 each addt'I$100 or fraction thereof
to and including$2,000 to and including$2,000
For the first$2,000 plus$20.20 for For the first$2,000 plus$20.20 for
303$2,001 to$25,000 99.20 each addt'I$1,000 or fraction 99.20 each addt'I$1,000 or fraction
thereof to and includino$25,000 thereof to and including$25,000
For the first$25,000 plus$14.85 For the first$25,000 plus$14.85
304$25,001 to$50,000 556.45 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction 556.45 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction
thereof to and including$50,000 thereof to and including$50,000
For the first$50,000 plus$10.10 For the first$50,000 plus$10.10
305$50,001 to$100,000 916.10 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction 916.10 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction
thereof to and including$100,000 thereof to and including$100,000
For the first$100,000 plus$8.50 For the first$100,000 plus$8.50
306$101,000 to$500,000 1,413.20 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction 1,413.20 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction
thereof to and including$500,000 thereof to and including$500,000
For the first$500,000 plus$6.90 For the first$500,000 plus$6.90
307$501,000 to$1,000,000 4,595.35 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction 4,595.35 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction
thereof to and including$1,000,000 thereof to and including$1,000,000
For the first$1,000,000 plus$5.30 For the first$1,000,000 plus$5.30
308 More than$1,000,000 7,975.80 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction 7,975.80 for each addt'I$1,000 or fraction
thereof thereof
309 Inspections outside normal business hours 98.04 Per hour;minimum 4 hours 85.00 Per hour;minimum charge is for 4
hours
310 Re-inspection 98.04 Per hour;minimum 1 our 85.00 Per hour;minimum 1 hour
311 Plan Review
312 Basic fee 65%of Building permit fee 65%of Building permit fee
313 Energy plan check fee,where applicable Additional 25%of Building permit Additional 25%of Building permit
fee fee
73
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee' Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
314 Disabled access plan check,where applicable Additional 35%of Building permit Additional 35%of Building permit
fee fee
315 Planning Department plan check fee,where Additional 15%of Building permit Additional 15%of Building permit
applicable fee fee
316 Plan revisions for Planning Department 98.04 85.00
317 Plan revisions subsequent to permit issuance 98.04 Per hour,plus any additional cost 85.00 Per hour plus cost of any additional
review
316 Engineering Division plan review,where applicable Additional 25%of Building permit Additional 25%of Building permit
fee fee
319 Imaging fee Additional 5%of Building permit Additional 5%of Building permit
fee fee
320 Arborist review Additional 5.75Building permit Additional 5.75%of Building permit
fee fee
321 PLUMBING(The following fees do not include connections fees such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies)
322 For issuance of each plumbing permit $ 37.47 $ 34.50
New residential building
(including all plumbing fixtures,connections and
323 gas outlets for new single-family or multi-family 0.12 Per sq.ft.of habitable area 0.09 Per sq.ft.of habitable area
buildings.The estimated time is based on the
work to be complete for a residential home with
an average size of 2,500 square feet)
Fixtures and vents-for each plumbing fixture or trap
324(including water and waste piping and backflow 16.34 14.50
prevention)
325 Sewer and Interceptors
326 For each building sewer 57.19 34.50
327 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor 49.02 28.65
exce t
kitchen-type grease traps)
326 Water Piping and Water Heaters
For installation alteration or repair of water piping o
329 49.02 6.95
water-treatment equipment
33o For each water heater including vent 49.02 18.00
331 Gas PI in Systems
332 1 to 5 outlets 32.68 9.55
333 Each additional outlet over 5 outlets 6.54 2.10
334 Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices
335 Irrigation systems including backflow devices 49.02 21.25
336 Other backflow prevention devices
337 2" 50.8 mm or smaller 49.02 21.25
338 Over 2" 50.8 mm 49.02 34.50
339 Swimming Pools/Spas
Sao Public oo1 196.09 131.35
341 Publics
a 147.07 85.00
342 Private pool 196.09 85.00
74
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
343 Private spa 147.07 42.50
344 Miscellaneous
345 For each appliance or fixture for which no fee is listec 32.68 14.00
346 Inspections outside normal business hours 98.04 Per hour 85.50 Per hour
347 Re-inspection 98.04 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
348 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated 98.04 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
349 Imaging fee Additional 5%of Plumbing permit Additional 5%of Plumbing permit
fee fee
350 Plan review where plans are required Additional 25%of Plumbing permit Additional 25%of Plumbing permit
fee fee
351 MECHANICAL(The following fees'do not include connections fees such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility'companie
352 For issuance of each mechanical permil 37.47 34.50
New residential building
(Including all mechanical work such as
353 appliances,exhaust fans,ducts,and flues. The 0.09 Per sq.ft.of habitable area 0.09 Per sq.ft.of habitable area
estimated time is based on the work to be
completed for a residential home with an average
size of 2,500 square feet)
354 Furnace
355 U to 100 MBTU 49.02 21.65
356 Over 1000 MBTU 49.02 28.85
357 Boilers,corn ressor5 absorption sstems
358 U to 100 MBTU or 3HP 49.02 21.65
359 Over 100 MBTU or 3HP 49.02 40.20
360 Air Conditioners 49.02 21.65
361 Air Handlers
362 Up to 10,000 CFM including ducting 32.68 Each 14.40 Each
363 Over 10,000 CFM 49.02 Each 21.65 Each
364 Ventilation and Exhaust
365 Each ventilation fan attached to a single dud 16.34 Each 10.80 Each
366 Each rood including duds 24.51 Each 21.65 Each
367 Miscellaneous
368 For each appliance or piece of equipment not 24.51 21.65
specifically listed above
369 Inspections outside normal business hours 98.04 Per hour;minimum 4 hours 85.00 Per hour;minimum charge is for 4
hours
370 Re-inspection 98.04 Per hour minimum 1 hour 85.00 Per hour minimum 1 hour
371 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated 98.04 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
372 Imaging fee Additional 5%of Mechanical permit Additional 5%of Mechanical permit
fee fee
373 Plan review where plans are required Additional 25%of Mechanical Additional 25%of Mechanical
permit fee permit fee
75
Table B 1: Master Fee Schedule
ServicelApplication Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee z Fees Recommended by City Staff'
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
374 ELECTRICAL(The following fees do not include connections fees such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies
375 For issuance of each electrical permit 37.47 34.50
New residential building
(Including all wiring and electrical devices in or
376 on each building,including service. The 0.09 Per sq.ft.of habitable area 0.09 Per sq.ft,of habitable area
estimated time is based on work to be complete
for a residential home with an average size of
2,500 square feet)
377 System Fee Schedule
378 Swimming Pools/Spas
379 Public swimming pools and spas including all wiring 98 04 85.00
and electrical equipment
380 Private pools for single-family residences 73.53 68.50
381 Temporary Power
382 Temporary service pole including all attached 4
receptacles 9.02 34.50
383 Temporary power pole and wiring for construction 49.02 51.50
sites,Christmas tree lots,etc.
384 Unit Fee Schedule
385 Rece tare,switch and light outlets
386 First 20 units 49.02 34.50
387 Each additional unit 3.27 1.05
388 Appliances
Residential -for fixed residential appliances
389 including cooktops,ovens,air conditioning, 8.17 Each 7.00 Each
garbase disposals,and similar devices not
exceeding 1 HP in rating
Non-residential-for self-contained factory-wired
non-residential applicances not exceeding 1 HP,
390 KW,kVA in rating including medical and dental 8.17 Each 7.00 Each
devices;food,beverage and ice cream cabinets;
illuminated showcases;drinking fountains,vending
machines;laundry machines;etc.
Power Apparatus-for motors,generators,air
conditioners,heat pumps,commercial cooking
391 devices,and,etc.(ratings in hoursepower,kilowatts,
kilovolt-amperes,or kilovolt-amperes-reactive)
392 U to 10 24.51 17.50
393 Over 10 to and including 100 49.02 39.75
394Over 100 98.04 108.00
76
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee Z Fees Recommended by City Staff'
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
Notes:1)For equipment or appliances having more
than one motor,transformer,heater,etc.,the sum of
395 the combined ratings may be used,and 2)these
fees include all switches,circuit breakers,
contractors,thermostats,relays,and other related
control equipment.
396 Photo voltaic systems
397 U to 3,000 watts 409.70 309.00
396 Over 3,000 watts
399 Plan check 106.80 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
400 Permit 302.89 309.00
Trolleys and plug-in type busways For each 100 it(30,500 mm)or
401(The estimated time is based on work to be complete 24.51 For each 100 ft or fraction thereof 10.60 fraction thereof
per 100 ft
402 Signs,Outline Lighting and Marquees
403 signs,outline lighting,or marquees supplied from 49.02 Each 34.50 Each
one circuit
404 For additional branch circuits within the same sign, 16.34 Each 7.00 Each
outline li htin ,or mar uee
405 Services
406 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes 49.02 Each 39.75 Each
407 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to and 73.53 Each 91.25 Each
including 1,000 amperes
406 Over 600 volts and over 1,000 amperes 98.04 Each 171.00 Each
409 Miscellaneous
410 For apparatus,conduits,and conductors for which a 32.68 28.85
permit is required but for which no fee is set forth
411 Inspection outside normal business hours 98.04 Per hour;minimum 4 hours 85.00 Per hour;minimum charge is for 4
hours
412 Reins eclion 98.04 Per hour;minimum 1 hour 85.00 Per hour;minimum 1 hour
413 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated 98.04 Per hour 85.00 Per hour
414 Imaging fee Additional 5%of Electrical permit Additional 5%of Electrical permit
fee fee
415 Plan review where plans are required Additional 25%of Electrical permit Additioanl 25%of Electrical permit
fee fee
416 General Fees
417 Appeal fee of Planning Commission 277.11 139.00
77
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery Fee 1 Current Fees Fees Recommended by City Staff'
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
PARKS&RECREATION
Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks&Recreation Facilities Usage:
Group A:Government agencies with Parks&Recreation service agreements with the City,such as Burlingame School District and SMUHSD
Group B:Non-profit(501 c(3))groups or organizations,such as AYSO,BYBA,Library Foundation
Group C:Private parties,commercial,business,and profit-making organizations,such as weddings,seminars,receptions
418
Notes:Parks&Recreation Department is unlike any other departments within the City because its fees charged for services rendered can be set at the total cost or can be considered a rental charge,which in this
case would need to be set at a competitive market rate. The full cost recovery fees presented in this report includes cost of staff time,and/or third party fees,materials costs. Ultimately,it is the City's decision as to
whether it will set its fees at the total cost(full cost recovery fee that reflects staff time)or at rental charges.
419 Burlingame High School indoor Facilities
420 Main Gym
421 Group A $ 16.08 No charge
422 Group B
423 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 15.00 Per hour
424 Non-residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
425 Group C
426 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 30.00 Per hour
427 Non-residents 16.08 50.00 Per hour
428 Small Gym
429 Group A 16.08 No charge
430 Group B
431 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 10.00 Per hour
432 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
433 Group C
434 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 20.00 Per hour
435 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
436 Other Indoor Facilities,except the Auditorium
437 Group A 16.08 No charge
438 Group B
439 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 14.00 Per hour
440 Non-residents 16.08 18.00 Per hour
441 Group C
442 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 30.00 Per hour
443 Non-residents 16.08 36.00 Per hour
444 Auditorium
445 Group A 16.08 No charge
446 Group B
447 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 30.00 Per hour
448 Non-residents 16.08 36.00 Per hour
449 Group C
450 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 77.00 Per hour
451 Non-residents 16.08 94.00 Per hour
452 Otherchar es
453 Buildin Attendant 38.98 Per hour 22.00 Per hour
78
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery Fee Current Fee Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
454 Weekend Custodian 80.00 Per hour 80.00 Per hour
455 Weekday Custodian 25.00 25.00
456 Extra,Non-Scheduled Hours 125.00 Per hour 125.00 Per hour
457 Security Personnel 118.11 Per hour 60.00 Per hour
ass Table/Chairs
459 Up to 50 7.00
460 51-100 15.00
461 Over 100 20.00
462 Coffee Pots 10.00 Per pot
463 Wine/beer to be served 30.00 Additional
464 TV/VCR 10.00
465 Overhead Projector 10.00
466 Microphone 10.00
467 Burlingame High School Outdoor Facilities
Outdoor facilities or field use for Season by Per resident player per league;$30
ass Burlin ame-based non-profit youth sports group 16.08 10.00 r non-resident player per league
9 P Y P 9 P Pe P Y P 9
469 Stadium Field
azo Group A 16.08 No charge
471 Group B
472 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 20.00 Per hour
473 Non-residents 16.08 30.00 Per hour
474 Group C
475 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 40.00 Per hour
476 Non-residents 16.08 50.00 Per hour
477 Stadium Track Track only)
478 Group A 16.08 No charge
479 Group B
480 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 10.00 Per hour
481 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
482 Group C
483 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 20.00 Per hour
484 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
485 Back Field
abs Group A 16.08 No charge
487 Group B
488 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 15.00 Per hour
489 Non-residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
490 Group C
491 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 20.00 Per hour
492 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
493 Softball Field #7 or#2
494 Group A 16.08 No charge
495 Group B
496 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 10.00 Per hour
497 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
498 Group
rou C
4991 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 20.00 Per hour
79
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee' Fees Recommended by City Staff'
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
500 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
501 Tennis Courts
502 Group A 16.08 No charge
503 Group B
504 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 15.00 For 4 hours
505 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 For 4 hours
506 Group C
507 Residents of SMUHSD 16.08 30.00 For 4 hours
508 Non-residents 16.08 30.00 For hours
509 Other Parks B Recreation Facilities
510 Franklin Field
511 Group A 16.08 No charge
512 Group B
513 Burlingame residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
514 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
515 Group C
516 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
517 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
518 Osberg Field
519 Group A 16.08 No charge
520 Group B
521 Burlingame residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
522 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
523 Group C
524 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
525 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
526 Bayside Ball Fields #1 or#2
527 Group A 16.08 No charge
528 Group B
529 Burlingame residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
530 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
531 Group C
532 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
533 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
534 Bayside Ball Fields(#3 or#4 for softball or
baseball)
535 Group A 16.08 No charge
536 Group B
537 Burlingame residents 16.08 7.00 Per hour
538 Non-residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
539 Group C
540 Burlingame residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
541 Non-residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
542 Bayside Ball Fields #3 or#4 for soccer
543 Group A 16.08 No charge
544 Group B
545 Burlingame residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
546 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
80
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery Fee' Current Fee 2 Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
547 Group C
548 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
549 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
550 Cuernavaca Park
551 Group A 16.08 No charge
552 Group B
553 Burlingame residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
554 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
555 Group C
556 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
557 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
558 MurrayField
559 Group A 16.08 No charge
560 Group B
561 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
562 Non-residents 16.08 30.00 Per hour
563 Group C
564 Burlingame residents 16.08 40.00 Per hour
565 Non-residents 16.08 50.00 Per hour
566 Ra Park all Fields(#1 or#2
567 Group A 16.08 No charge
568 Group B
569 Burlingame residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
570 Non-residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
571 Group C
572 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
573 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 Per hour
574 Ray Park Tennis Courts
575 Group A 16.08 No charge
576 Group B
577 Burlingame residents 16.08 15.00 For 4 hours
578 Non-residents 16.08 25.00 For 4 hours
579 Group C
580 Burlingame residents 16.08 30.00 For 4 hours
581 Non-residents 16.08 50.00 For 4 hours
582 Washington Park Main Ball Field(for baseball)
583 Group A 16.08 No charge
584 Group B
585 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
586 Non-residents 16.08 30.00 Per hour
587 Group C
588 Burlingame residents 16.08 40.00 Per hour
589 Non-residents 16.08 50.00 Per hour
590 Washington Park Bullpen
591 Grou A 16.08 No charge
592 Grou B
5931 Burlingame residents 16.08 5.00 Per hour
81
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee 2 Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
594 Non-residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
595 Group C
596 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
597 Non-residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
598 Washington Park Main Ballfield Outfield(for
soccer)
599 Group A 16.08 No charge
600 Group B
601 Burlingame residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
602 Non-residents 16.08 30.00 Per hour
603 Group C
604 Burlingame residents 16.08 40.00 Per hour
605 Non-residents 16.08 50.00 Per hour
606 Washington Park Small BaReld
607 Group A 16.08 No charge
608 Group B
Eos Burlingame residents 16.08 7.00 Per hour
610 Non-residents 16.08 10.00 Per hour
611 Group C
612 Burlingame residents 16.08 15.00 Per hour
613 Non-residents 16.08 20.00 Per hour
614 Washington Park Tennis Courts
615 Group A 16.08 No charge
616 Group B
617 Burlingame residents 16.08 30.00 For 4 hours
618 Non-residents 16.08 50.00 For 4 hours
619 Group C
620 Burlingame residents 16.08 30.00 For 4 hours
621 Non-residents 16.08 50.00 For 4 hours
622 Pool-50 Meter
623 Group A 16.08 Lifeguard cost
624 Group B
625 Burlingame residents 16.08 125.00 Per hour;plus lifeguard cost
626 Non-residents 16.08 188.00 Per hour;plus lifeguard cost
627 Group C
628 Burlingame residents 16.08 225.00 Per hour plus lifeguard cost
629 Non-residents 16.08 288.00 Per hour;plus lifeguard cost
630 Pool-Small Pool
631 Group A 16.08 Lifeguard cost
632 Group B
633 Burlingame residents 16.08 63.00 Per hour;plus lifeguard cost
634 Non-residents 16.08 95.00 Per hour;plus lifeguard cost
635 Group C
636 Burlingame residents 16.08 125.00 Per hour;plus lifeguard cost
637Non-residents 16.08 188.00 Per hour;plus lifeguard cost
638 Pool Lanes short
639Group A 16.08 Lifeguard cost
640Group B 16.08 10.00 Per lane perhour
82
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee 2 Fees Recommended by City Staff'
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
641 Group C 16.08 16.00 Per lane per hour
642 Pool Lanes(long)
643 Group A 16.08 Lifeguard cost
644 Group B 16.08 20.00 Per lane perhour
645 Group C 16.08 25.00 Per lane per hour
646 Small Picnic Area
647 Burlingame residents 16.08 50.00 Plus$50 refundable cleaning
de osit
646 Non-residents 16.08 75.00 Plus$50 refundable cleaning
de sit
649 Large Picnic Area
650 Burlingame residents 16.08 100.00 Plus$100 refundable cleaning
deposit
651 Non-residents 16.08 125.00 Plus$100 refundable cleaning
de osit
652 Classes
653 Registration fee 6.82 8.00
654 Registration cancellation fee 6.82 5.00 Per class or event
655 Class Fees
656 Residents To be set based on class provider To be set based on class provider
and materials/facilities provided and materials/facilities provided
657 Non-residents Add 20%to class fee rounded to Add 20%to class fee rounded to
the nearest dollar the nearest dollar
658 Senior discount-Burlingame residents age 65 50%off class fee on classes held 50%off class fee on classes held
and over at Recreation Center at Recreation Center
659 Senior discount-non-residents age 65 and over Waive non-resident fee Waive non-resident fee
sso Tree and Parks Fees
661 Memorial tree plantings and additional street tree 190.56 Plus$35.00 To buy a tree 75.00
plantings
662 Protected Tree Removal Applications 145.99 50.00
Arborist's plan review for landscaping
663 requirements on planning applications(see also 163.36 125.00
planning fee schedule
Arborist check of construction plans and
664 inspection of landscape requirements on building 163.36 5.75%of building permit fee
permit submittals
Appeal to City Council from Beautification
665 Commission decision(does not include noticing 145.99 230.00
costs
666 N0 icin ,Cif Council Appeal 32.15 25.00
667 RENTAL' FE LTYvFEE3„
668 FINANCE
669 Temporary Water Service-Water Meter Rental
670 1"Meter $ 43.00 Per month;$750 deposit is rquired $ 43.00 Per month;$750 deposit is rquired
83
Table B1: Master Fee Schedule
Service/Application Full Cost Recovery FeeCurrent Fee 2 Fees Recommended by City Staff 3
Fee Notes Fee Notes Fee Notes
671 3"Meter 85.00 Per month;$750 deposit is 85.00 Per month;$750 deposit is
required
re uired
672 Submittal of surety bond for transient occupancy 15.00 For every 15 days bond is late 15.00 For every 15 days bond is late
after expiration of bond
673 LIBRARY
674 Lane Room Rental
675 Process reservation&1 hourdeaning 115.81 Per reservation 75.00
676 Audio/Visual Usage 5.00 Exclusive use New fee
677 Audio/Visual Support 65.11 Per hour 25.00 Per hour
678 POLICE
679 Vehicle release 77.25 77.25
680 Repossessed vehicle 15.00 15.00
681 DUI Fees
682 Staff time FB hourly rate of staff who provides 113.00 Per hour
the service
683 Blood test 113.00 Per test 113.00 Per test
684 Breath or urine test 62.00 Per test 62.00 Per test
685 Refused blood test 57.00 Per refuse 57.00 Per refuse
686 False Alarm Char e
687 3-5 false alarms 50.00 Each 50.00 Each
688 6 or more false alarms 100.00 Each 100.00 Each
689 Any false alarm for which no alarm permit has been 150.00 Eaxh plus false alarm fees shown 150.00 Eaxh plus false alarm fees shown
issued above above
' From Tables 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,and 12.
2 FY 2007-08 Master Fee Schedule.
3 Fees recommended by City staff for adoption. To be filled by City staff
Notes:
FB Hourly Rate-This service is charged based on the FB Hourly Rate of the position(s)that providing the service
Actual Cost-This service is charged based on the actual labor and material costs to render the service
Based on Valuation-This service is charged based on the valuation of a project.
84
APPENDIX C: COST ALLOCATION PLAN
The primary objective of a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) is to analyze costs of central service
departments and distribute those costs to operating departments as overhead costs. Costs of central
service departments are allocable because departments provide services and support to operating
departments that conduct the operations necessary to serve the community. Typical central service
departments are Finance, Human Resources, and Information Technology. Typical operating
departments include Police,Fire, Community Development,and Public Works.
The City of Burlingame requested that we conduct a CAP to be used strictly in conjunction with the
City's User Fee Study. As such the CAP presented hereafter is not OMB A-87 compliant and
therefore cannot be used for any other purposes.
To ensure that all costs associated within the provision of central services are appropriately allocated
to the respective operating departments, we analyzed and identified all central service departments'
expenditures to determine which costs are allocable to operating departments as indirect costs,
otherwise known as overhead costs. Based on our analysis, all cost, except capital outlay cost, of
each central service department is allocable to operating departments. Depreciation expenses
incurred by central service departments are not included in this CAP.
Table B1 summarizes the budget for FY 2007-08,non-allocable costs of central service departments,
and allocable costs of central service departments. Table B2 indicates factor used to distribute the
allocable cost of each central service department to other departments. Tables B3 to B11 detail the
distribution of allocable cost of each central service department to other departments. Table B12
summarizes the total cost allocated to each operating department.
MMuniFh&%cW 89
Table BI:Budget Summary
A H C Check&D.L. D H F
C,-.wScrvicc Ucpotm _� D E
.s�md 64100 I�1,12N j 13,441 1 - 3 117,769 j 117,769 j 23,554 2U°'o of the tool budget of the Jupxnmast 3 94,215
i,�I.mngce 64150 175 53,353 369,828 369,828 73,966 20"'o of Use lotd budget of the kV-.t t 295,862
64200 11.7,2117 51'sm 219,075 219,075 43,813 2U'+e of the told budget of Ibs:Jepxvmml 175,260
I'ivm« 64250 1,15x,148 (291,126) - 867,022 067,022 867,022
City Alt— 64350 2M,797 114,445 - 395,242 395,242 395,242
Ilumxv Reevvmea 64420 383,021 194,356 577,377 577,377 - 577,377
Admmiatrxtvm/ 64450 9,411 750,853 25,(XX) 785,264 785,264 785,264 7Lra n lmemd Smice Fund mats drexdy dbcxteJ m vier drysxvmmta -
Fx htks Se 64460 484,346 657,659 275,51X1 1,417,5115 1417,505 1,417,505 Thin is Ivtemd Service Fund (,natn dready illocxt<d to vur dep9rtmenb -
RA T7mxgemevt 64521 2,1.34.IN1 4471Mx) - 2,983,200 2,981,210 2,983,200 Thin is Intemd Semce 17onJ.Csst.drexdy xllocxled to user Jepmmema -
F]ectivn 645411 - 34,51x) 34,SOU 34,5W - 34,500
COher livployer 11,E iv• "550 2,063.(W (155,000) 1910,000 1,910,000 1,910,000
von-U<pxrtmei,i.J 643W - 557,860 557,860 557,860 - 557,860
['as mmt tslxinlni.,,,, 66700 339,152 1 259,613 1,327,5130 1,926,265 1,926,265 1,926.265 'lLis is Ivtemd Semce Fund.C sats xI-dy dlocxled to vier depxrtmenta -
Depxttmev
Mmvivg 64400 723,454 153,Im - 876,560 876,560
Commuter SlmOk 64570 30,076 30,076 311,076
Hotel/Shopper Shwk 64571 10/Xm 198,008 - 208,668 208,668
Vonh Burbvgxme Sh-k 00572 89,116 89,116 89,116
Public TV Acura 6451x1 - 70,0W 70,000 7001X)
Police 65100 6,898,221 1,428,112 - 8,326,315 8,326,335
Cxammulu'ntions 65150 749,905 98,747 - 848,652 848,652
Fire 65200 7714,9% 1,519,214 - 9.234,2W 9,234,21111
Mdbag lvapcc6- 65300 704,282 130,629 - 834,911 834,911
Parking 65400 904,246 4&1,587 7,2W 1,392,033 1,392,033
DPaepxrednesa 655W 41,675 54,110 95,785 95,785
F.vg.--g 66100 1,610,228 641,577 S,WO 2,236,8115 2,256,M5
Staeeta&S.,,-Urxmxge66210 1,681,598 1,366,941 - 2,448,539 2,448,539
Sewer hldnten+nm 66521 1190,974 3,586,884 79,1X10 5,256,858 5,256,858
Wnalewxtar T....- 665.30 1.127,W) 3,513,5]6 - 6,640$76 6,640,576
Solid%%.-hixaxgemevt 66600 292,228 311,323 - 603,551 603,351
Fmm«Awhomy-21011. 1. llecu 11-d 66840 - 580,981 - 580,981 58.981
Fivmce Amhooty-[A-y Refvudisag B 66850 - 762,590 - 762,SW 762,59U
Perm.,Obligx &nasi 668611 2,819,474 - 2,819,474 2,819,474
Library 67500 2,594,424 993,968 - 3,588,392 3,588,392
Rccmarwn (8016 1,621,779 1,591,773 3,212,552 3,212,552
puka 6X020 7 956,tl50 SSd,564 718. 2,518,414 2,518,414
R'mer(3 a I.%9561(. x219451 1325.) 10147,607 10,147,(11]
$ 41,204,66.3 j 32,039,219 8 1.707,700 75,003,582 3 75,003,582 8 7,253,Sfix 8 4,907 139
Snvr¢�
M'3)07-2W)8 B dgct.
86
Table B2:Distribution Base
Total
Departmental
Departments Budget
City Council 5 117,769
City Manager 369,828
City Clerk 219,075
Finance 867,022
City Attorney 395,242
human Resources 577,377
Administration/Information Services 785,264
Facilities Services 1,417,505
Risk Management 2,983,200
Flection 34,500
Other Employee Benefits 1,910,000
Non-Departmental 557,860
ui ment Maintenance _ 1,926,265
Departments
Planning 876,560
Commuter Shuttle 30,076
1 Iotel/Shopper Shuttle 208,668
North Burlingame Shuttle 89,116
Public TV Access 70,000
Police 8,326,335
Communications 848,652
Fire 9,234,200
Building Inspection 834,911
Parking 1,392,033
Disaster Preparedness 95,785
Engineering 2,256,805
Streets&Storm Drainage 2,448,539
Sewer Maintenance 5,256,858
Wastewater Treatment 6,640,576
Solid Waste Management 603,551
Finance Authority-2001 Lease Revenue Bond 580,981
Finance Authoring-Library Refunding Bond 762,590
Pension Obligation Bond 2,819,474
Library 3,588,392
Recreation 3,212,552
Parks 2,518,414
W'ater Operations 10147,607
$ 75,003,582
t Table 1.
87
Table B3: City Council Cost Allocation
Distribution Basis/Bases % Allocable
Budget
Total Departmental Budget 100.00°u $ 94,215
Total 100.000/0 $ 94,215
Total
Departmental
Departments Dept.No. Budget $ 94,215 Total ANocation
Dist.Mise' Dept.°'o Allocation $ 94 215
,ajAjjjlJ"Central Service Departments
1:ity Council 6410(1 117,769 0.16% S 148 $ 148
City Manager 64150 369,828 0.49% 465 465
City Clerk 64200 219,075 0.29% 275 275
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 1,089 1,089
City Attorney 64351) 395,242 0.53% 496 496
Human Resources 64421, 577,377 0.77% 725 725
Administration/Information Services 64451, 785,264 1.05% 986 986
Facilities Services 6446, 1,417,505 1.89% 1,781 1,781
Risk Management 64520 2,983,200 3.98% 3,747 3,747
Flection 6454, 34,500 0.05% 43 43
Other Employee Benefits 64550 1,910,00() 2.55% 2,399 2,399
Non-Departmental 64561) 557,860 0.74% 701 701
E ui Ment Maintenance 66711, 1,926,265 2.57% 2,420 2,420
Planning 64400 876,560 1.17% 1,101 1,101
Commuter Shuttle 64570 30,076 0.04% 38 38
IIotel/Sliopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 0.28% 262 262
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.12% 112 112
Public TV Access 64580 70,000 0.091/0 88 88
Police 65100 8,326,335 11.10% 10,459 10,459
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 1,066 1,066
Fire 65200 9,234,200 12.31% 11,599 11,599
Building Inspection 65300 834,911 1.11% 1,049 1,049
Parking 654(1(1 1,392,033 1.86% 1,749 1,749
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 120 120
L:ngincering 66100 2,256,805 3.01% 2,835 2,835
Streets&Storm Drainage 66211) 2,448,539 326% 3,076 3,076
Sewer Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 6,603 6,603
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 8,342 8,342
Solid Waste Management 6660x1 603,551 0.80% 758 758
Finance Authority-2001 Lease Revenue Bond 66840 580,981 0.77% 730 730
Finance Authority-]rbrary Refunding Bond 66850 762,590 1.02% 958 958
Pension Obligation Bond 66860 2,819,474 3.76% 3,542 3,542
Iabrary 67500 3,588,392 4.78% 4,508 4,508
Recreation 68010 3,212,552 4.28% 4,035 4,035
Parks 68020 2,518,414 3.36% 3,163 3,163
Water Operations 1 69020 1 10,14'.60- 13.530'0 12,747 1 12,7471
Total 75,003,582 100.00% $ 94,215 $ 94,215
t Table 2.
2 Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of City Council distributed to other departments.
88
i
Table 134: City Manager Cost Allocation
Distribution Basis/Bases o o Allocable
Budget
Total Departmental Budget 100.009-u $ 295,862
Total 100.00% $ 295,862
Dept. Total
Departmental
Departments
Dist.Base t De t.%2 Allocation $ Allocation 295 862
Service Departments'
City Council 64100 $ 117,769 0.16% $ 465 $ 465
City Manager 64150 369,828 0.49% 1,459 1,459
City Clerk 64200 219,075 0.29% 864 864
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 3,420 3,420
City Attorney 64350 395,242 0.53% 1,559 1,559
Human Resources 64420 577,377 0.77% 2,278 2,278
Administration/Information Services 64450 785,264 1.05% 3,098 3,098
Facilities Services 64460 1,417,505 1.890/0 5,592 5,592
Risk Management 64520 2,983,200 3.98% 11,768 11,768
Election 64540 34,500 0.05% 136 136
Other Employee Benefits 64550 1,910,00( 2.55% 7,534 7,534
Non-Departmental 64560 557,860 0.74% 2,201 2,201
E ui ment Maintemanec 66700 1,926,265 2.57% 7,598 7,598
Planning 64400 876,560 1.17% 3,458 3,458
Commuter Shuttle 64570 30,076 0.04% 119 119
IIotcl/Shopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 0.28% 823 823
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.12% 352 352
Public TV,Access 64580 70,0(X) 0.09% 276 276
Police 65100 8,326,335 11.10% 32,844 32,844
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 3,348 3,348
Fire 65200 9,2342(X) 12.31% 36,426 36,426
Building Inspection 65300 834,911 1.11% 3,293 3,293
Parking 65400 1,392,033 1.86% 5,491 5,491
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 378 378
Engineering 66100 2,256,805 3.01% 8,902 8,902
Streets&Storm Drainage 66210 -2448,539 3.26% 9,659 9,659
Sewer Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 20,736 20,736
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 26,195 26,195
Solid Waste Management 66600 603,551 0.800/0 2,381 2,381
Finance Authority-2001 lease Revenue Bond 66840 580,981 0.77% 2,292 2,292
Finance Authority-Library Refunding Bond 66850 762,590 1.02% 3,008 3,008
Pension Obligation Bond 66860 2,819,474 3.76% 11,122 11,122
library 67500 3,588,392 4.78% 14,155 14,155
Recreation 68010 3,212,552 4.28% 12,672 12,672
Parks 68020 2,518,414 3.36% 9,934 9,934
Water Operations 69020 0,14-,6()- 13.53% 40,029 1 40,0291
Total 75,003,582 100.00% $ 295,862 $ 295,862
t Table 2.
2 Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of City Manager distributed to other departments.
89
Table B5: City Clerk Cost Allocation
Distribution Basis/Bases % Allocable Budget
"Total Departmental Budget 100.00% $ 175,260
Total 100.000/0 $ 175,260
Total
Departments DepartmentalBudget $ 175,2M
Total Allocation 3
Dict.Base t Dept.%2 Allocation $ 175,260
ntral service Devartments
City Council 64100 S 117,769 0.16% $ 275 S 275
City Manager 64150 369,828 0.49% 864 864
City Clerk 64200 219,075 0.29% 512 512
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 2,026 2,026
City Attorney 64350 395,242 0.53% 924 924
Human Resources 64420 577,377 0.77% 1,349 1,349
Administration/Information Services 64450 785,264 1.050/0 1,835 1,835
Facilities Services 64460 1,417,505 1.89% 3,312 3,312
Risk Management 64520 2,983,200 3.98% 6,971 6,971
Election 64540 34,500 0.05% 81 81
Other Employee Benefits 64550 1,910,0()0 2.55% 4,463 4,463
Non-Departmental 64560 557,860 0.740/. 1,304 1,304
Equipment Maint,,,,i,,, 66700 1,926,265 2.57% 4,501 4,501
_DI2e
Planning 64400 876,560 1.17% 2,048 2,048
Commuter Shuttle 64570 30,076 0.04% 70 70
I Iotel/Shopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 028% 488 488
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.12% 208 208
Public'n'Access 64580 70,000 0.090/0 164 164
Police 65100 8,326,335 11.100/0 19,456 19,456
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 1,983 1,983
Fire 65200 9,234,2(10 12.31% 21,577 21,577
Building Inspection 834,911 1.11% 1,951 1,951
Parking Gall i, 1,392,033 1.86% 3,253 3,253
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 224 224
Engineering 66100 2,256,8(.)5 3.01% 5,273 5,273
Streets&Storm Drainage 66210 2,448,539 3.260/6 5,721 5,721
Seger Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 12,284 12,284
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 15,517 15,517
Solid Waste Management 66600 603,551 0.80% 1,410 1,410
Finance Authority-2001 Lease Revenue Bond 66840 -580,981 0.77% 1,358 1,358
Finance Authority-Library Refunding Bond 66850 -62,590 1.02% 1,782 1,782
Pension Obligation Bond 668611 2,819,474 3.76% 6,588 6,588
Library 67500 3,588,392 4.78% 8,385 8,385
Recreation 68010 3,212,552 4.280/. 7,507 7,507
Parks 68020 2,518,414 3.36% 5,885 5,885
WaterOperations 1 69020 1 10,147,607 ]3.53°% 23,712 1 23712
Total 75,003,582 100.00% $ 175,260 $ 175,260
'Table 2.
Z Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of City Clerk distributed to other departments.
90
Table 136: Finance Cost Allocation
Distribution Basis/Bases o o Allocable
Budget
l utal Departmental Budget IW.00"'o $ 867,022
Total 100.00% $ 867,022
Total
Departmental
Departments Dept.No. Budget $ 867,022
Dist.Base' Dept.%2 Allocation $ '867,022
ntral,Service Departments
City Council 64100 S 117,769 0.16% $ 1,361 $ 1,361
City Manager 64150 369,828 0.49% 4,275 4,275
City Clerk 64200 219,075 0.29% 2,532 2,532
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 10,023 10,023
City Attorney 64350 395,242 0.53% 4,569 4,569
Human Resources 64420 577,377 0.77% 6,674 6,674
Administration/Information Services 64450 785-164 1.05% 9,077 9,077
Facilities Services 64460 1,417,505 1.89% 16,386 16,386
Risk Management 64520 2,983,200 3.98% 34,485 34,485
Election 64540 34,500 0.05% 399 399
Other Emploccc Benefits 64550 1,910,()00 2.550% 22,079 22,079
Non-Departmental 64560 557,860 0.740/6 6,449 6,449
E tti ment Maintenance 66700 1,926,265 2.57% 22,267 22,267
eparanents
Planning 64400 876,560 1.17% 10,133 10,133
Commuter Shuttle 64570 30,076 0.040/. 348 348
IIote1/Shopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 0.28% 2,412 2,412
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.12% 1,030 1,030
Public TV Access 64580 70,00 0.091/0 809 809
Police 65100 8,326,335 11.10% 96,250 96,250
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 9,810 9,810
i Fire 65200 9,234,200 12.31% 106,745 106,745
Building Inspection 65300 834,911 1.11% 9,651 9,651
Parking 65400 1,392,033 1.86% 16,092 16,092
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 1,107 1,107
Engineering 66100 2,256,805 3.01% 26,088 26,088
Streets&Stonn Drainage 66210 2,448,539 3.26% 28,304 28,304
Sewer Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 60,768 60,768
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 76,763 76,763
Solid Waste(Management 66600 603,551 0.800/0 6,977 6,977
Finance Authority-2001]ease Revenue Bond 66844) 580,981 0.77% 6,716 6,716
Finance Authority-Library Refunding Bond 66850 762,590 1.02% 8,815 8,815
Pension Obligation Bund 66860 2,819,474 3.76% 32,592 32,592
Library 67500 3,588,392 4.78% 41,481 41,481
Recreation 68010 3,212,552 4.28% 37,136 37,136
Parks 68020 2,518,414 3.36% 29,112 29,112
Water Operations 1 69020 1 10,147,60- 13.53% 11112M 1 117,304
Total 75,003,582 100.001/0 $ 867,022 $ 867,022
t Table 2.
2 Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of Finance distributed to other departments.
91
Table 137: City Attorney Cost Allocation
Distribution Basis/Bases % Allocable
Budget
Total Departmental Budget 100.00% $ 395,242
Total 100.00% S 395,242
Total
Departmental
Departments Dept.No. Budget $ 395,242
Dist.Base t Dept.%Z Allocation $ 395,242
Setvicee Departments AVIVA MOM
City Council 64100 $ 117,769 0.16% $ 621 S 621
City Manager 64150 369,828 0.49% 1,949 1,949
City Clerk 64200 219,0715 0.29% 1,154 1,154
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 4,569 4,569
City Attorney 64350 395,242 0.53% 2,083 2,083
Human Resources 64420 577,377 0.77% 3,043 3,043
Administration/Information Services 64450 -85,264 1.050/0 4,138 4,138
Facilities Services 64460 1,417,505 1.89% 7,470 7,470
Risk Management 64520 2,983,2O 3.98% 15,720 15,720
Election 64540 34,500 0.050/0 182 182
Other Employee Benefits 64550 1,910,(00 2.55% 10,065 10,065
Non-Departmental 64560 557,860 0.74% 2,940 2,940
E ui meat Maintenance 66700 1,926,265 2.57% 10,151 10,151
apartments 1
Planting 61441)0 876,500 1.17% 4,619 4,619
Commuter Shuttle 64570 30,076 0.04% 158 158
I Iotcl/Shopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 0.28% 1,100 1,100
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.12% 470 470
Public TV Access 64580 70,000 0.090/0 369 369
Police 65100 8,326,335 11.10% 43,877 43,877
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 4,472 4,472
Fire 65200 9,234,200 12.31% 48,661 48,661
Building Inspection 65300 834,911 1.11% 4,400 4,400
Parking 65400 1,392,033 1.86% 7,336 7,336
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 505 505
Engineering 66100 2,256,805 3.01% 11,893 11,893
Streets cC Sturm Drainage 66210 2,448,539 326% 12,903 12,903
Sewer Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 27,702 27,702
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 34,993 34,993
Solid Waste Mattagement 66600 603,551 0.800/0 3,180 3,180
Finance Authority-2001 Leasc Rccenue Bond 66840 580,981 0.77% 3,062 3,062
Finance Authority-Library Refunding Road 66850 762,590 1.02% 4,019 4,019
Pension Obligation Bund 66860 2,819,474 3.76% 14,858 14,858
Library 67500 3,588,392 4.78% 18,910 18,910
Recreation 68010 3,212,552 4.28% 16,929 16,929
Parks- 68020 2,518,414 3.36% 13,271 13,271
Water Operations 69020 1 10.147,60 13.53% 53,4741 1 53,474
Total 75,003,582 100.00% $ 395,242 $ 395,242
t Table 2.
2 Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of City Attorney distributed to other departments.
92
Table 138: Human Resources Cost Allocation
Distribution Basis/Bases ° Allocable Budget
Total Departmental Budget IW.00ro S 5-7,37 i
Total 100.00% S 577,377
Total
Departmental
Deparnnents Dept.No. Budget $ 577,377
Dist.Base t Dept.%2 Allocation $ 577 77
City Council 64100 S 117,769 0.16% $ 907 $ 907
City Manager 64150 369,828 0.49% 2,847 2,847
City Clerk 64200 219,075 029% 1,686 1,686
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 6,674 6,674
City Attorney 64350 395,242 0.53% 3,043 3,043
Human Resources 64420 577,377 0.77% 4,445 4,445
Administration/Information Services 64450 785,264 1.05% 6,045 6,045
Facilities Services 64460 1,417,505 1.89% 10,912 10,912
Risk Management 64520 2,983,200 3.98% 22,965 22,965
Flection 64540 34,500 0.05% 266 266
Other Employee Benefits 64550 1,910,00() 2.55% 14,703 14,703
Non-Departmental 64560 557,860 0.74% 4,294 4,294
E ui ment\E.untenancc 66700 1,926,265 2.57% 14,828 14,828
eta ,
Planning 64400 876,560 1.17% 6,748 6,748
Commuter Shuttle 64570 30,076 0.041/6 232 232
1Iotel/Shopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 028% 1,606 1,606
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.12% 686 686
Public TV Access 64580 70,000 0.09% 539 539
Police 65100 8,326335 11.10% 64,096 64,096
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 6,533 6,533
Fire 6520(1 9,234200 12.31% 71,085 71,085
Building Inspection 65300 834,911 1.11% 6,427 6,427
Parking 65400 1,392,033 1.86% 10,716 10,716
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 737 737
Engineering 66100 2,256,805 3.01% 17,373 17,373
Streets&Storm Drainage 66210 2,448,539 3.26% 18,849 18,849
Sewer Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 40,467 40,467
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 51,119 51,119
Solid Waste Management 66600 603,551 0.80% 4,646 4,646
Finance Authority-2001 lease Revenue Bond 66840 580,981 0.77% 4,472 4,472
Finance Authority-Library Refunding Bond 66850 762,590 1.02% 5,870 5,870
Pension Obligation Bond 66860 2,819,474 3.76% 21,704 21,704
Library 67500 3,588,392 4.78% 27,623 27,623
Recreation 68010 3,212,552 4.28% 24,730 24,730
Parks 68020 2,518,414 3.36°% 19,387 19,387
,Water O eranons 1 69020 1 1;.1 13.53"� 78,116 1 78,1161
Total 75,003,582 100.0V/. $ 577,377 $ 577,377
t Table 2.
Z Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of Human Resources distributed to other departments.
93
Table 139: Election Cost Allocation
Distribution Basis/Bases % Allocable
Budget
Total Departmental Budget 100.00% $ 34,500
Total 100.000/6 $ 34,500
Dept. Total
Departmental
Departments II Total Allocation
Dist.Base t Dept. 2 Allocation $ 34,500
Central Service Departments AllilikL Emil
64100 $ 117,769 0.16% $ 54 54
`.l:utager 64150 369,828 0.49% 170 170
Circ Clerk 64200 219,075 0.29% 101 ]O]
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 399 399
City Attorney 64350 395,242 0.53% 182 182
Human Resources 64420 577,377 0.77% 266 266
Administration/Information Services 64450 -85,264 1.050/0 361 361
Facilities Services 64460 1.417,505 1.890/0 652 652
Risk Management 64520 2,983,200 3.98% 1,372 1,372
Election 64540 34,500 0.05% 16 16
Otber Employee Benefits 64550 1,910,000 2.55% 879 879
Non-Departmental 64560 557,860 0.74% 257 257
E ui ment Maintenance 66700 1,926,265 2.57% 886 886
Planning 64400 876,560 1.17% 403 403
Commuter Shuttle 64570 30,076 0.04% 14 14
IIotel/Shopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 0.28% 96 96
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.120/0 41 41
Public TV Access 64580 70,000 0.090/0 32 32
Police 65100 8,326,335 11.10% 3,830 3,830
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 390 390
Fire 65200 9,234,200 12.31% 4,248 4,248
Building Inspection 65300 834,911 1.11% 384 384
Parking 65400 1,392,033 1.86% 640 640
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 44 44
Engineering 66100 2,256,805 3.01% 1,038 1,038
Streets&Storm Drainage 66210 2,448,539 3.26% 1,126 1,126
Sewer Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 2,418 2,418
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 3,055 3,055
Solid Waste Management 6660() 603,551 0.80% 278 278
Finance Authority-2001 Lease Revenue Bond 66840 580,981 0.77% 267 267
Finance Authority-Library Refunding Bond 66850 762,590 1.020% 351 351
Pension Obligation Bond 66860 2,819,474 3.76% 1,297 1,297
Library 67500 3588,392 4.78% 1,651 1,651
Recreation 6801(1 3.212,552 4.28% 1,478 1,478
Parks 68020 2,518,414 3.36% 1,158 1,158
Water Operations 1 69020 1 10,147,607 13.53% 4,6681 1 4,668
Total 75,003,582 100.00% $ 34,500 $ 34,500
t Table 2.
2 Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of Election distributed to other departments.
94
Table B10: Other Employee Benefits Cost Allocation
Distribution Basis/Bases % Allocable Budget
I otal Deparonental Budget 100.009b S 1,910,000
Total 100.00°o S 1,9103000
Total
Departmental
Departments ► 1,910,000
i
Dist.Base' Dept.% Allocation $ 191 000
Central Service Departments
ff(CC-,It,,),IC(I,Il-VII
niil 64100 S 117,',69 0.16% $ 2,999 $ 2,999
nager 64150 369,828 0.49% 9,418 9,418
rk 64200 219,075 0.29% 5,579 5,579
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 22,079 22,079
City Attorney 64350 395,242 0.53% 10,065 10,065
Human Resources 64420 577,377 0.77% 14,703 14,703
Administration/InformationSerices 64450 785,264 1.05% 19,997 19,997
Facilities Services 64460 1,417,505 1.89% 36,097 36,097
Risk Management 64520 2,983,200 3.98% 75,969 75,969
Election 64540 34,500 0.05% 879 879
Other Employee Benefits 64550 1,910,000 2.55% 48,639 48,639
Non-Departmental 64560 557,860 0.74% 14,206 14,206
E ui meat Maintenance 66700 1,926,265 2.57% 49,053 49,053
Planning 64400 876,560 1.17% 22,322 22,322
Commuter Shuttle 64570 30,076 0.04% 766 766
Hotel/Shopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 0.28% 5,314 5,314
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.12% 2,269 2,269
Public TV Access 64580 70,000 0.090/0 1,783 1,783
Police 65100 8,326,335 11.10% 212,034 212,034
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 21,611 21,611
Fire 65200 9,234,200 12.31% 235,153 235,153
Building Inspection 65300 834,911 1.11% 21,261 21,261
Parking 65400 1,392,033 1.86% 35,449 35,449
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 2,439 2,439
Engineering 66100 2,256,805 3.01% 57,471 57,471
Streets&Storm Drainage 66210 2,448,539 326% 62,353 62,353
Sewer Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 133,868 133,868
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 169,105 169,105
Solid Waste Management 66600 603,551 0.80% 15,370 15,370
Finance Authority-2001 lease Revenue Bond 668411 580,981 0.77% 14,795 14,795
Finance Authority-Library Refunding Bond 66850 762,590 1.02% 19,420 19,420
Pension Obligation Bond 66860 2,819,474 3.76% 71,799 71,799
Library 67500 3,588,392 4.780/c 91,380 91,380
Recreation 68010 3,212,552 4.28% 81,809 81,809
Parks 68020 2,518,414 3.36% 64,133 64,133
Water Operations 1 69020 1 10,147,607 13.53% 258,413 258,413
Total 75,003,582 100.000/6 $ 1,910,000 $ 1,910,000
'Table 2.
2 Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of Other Employee Benefits distributed to other departments.
95
Table 1311:Non-Departmental Cost Allocation
Allocable
Distribution Basis/Bases % Budget
Total Departmental Budget 100.00° S 557,860
Total 100.00% S 557,860
Total
Departmental 3
Departments Dept.No. Budget $ I Total Allocation
Dist.Base) Dept.°0 2 Allocation $ 557 860
fril Ser L=De is .,. .
City Council 64100 S 117,769 0.16% $ 876 $ 876
City Manager 64150 369,828 0.49% 2,751 2,751
City Clerk 64200 219,075 0.29% 1,629 1,629
Finance 64250 867,022 1.16% 6,449 6,449
City Attorney 64350 395,242 0.53% 2,940 2,940
Human Resources 64420 577,377 0.77% 4,294 4,294
Administration/Information Services 64450 785,264 1.05% 5,841 5,841
Facilities Services 64460 1,417,505 1.890/0 10,543 10,543
Risk Management 04520 2,983,21X1 3.98% 22,188 22,188
Election 64540 34,500 0.050/0 257 257
Other Employee Benefits 64550 1,910,00() 2.55% 14,206 14,206
Non-Departmental 64560 557,860 0.74% 4,149 4,149
Equipment Maint( u. c. 66700 1,926,265 2.57% 14,327 14,327
Ong Departments
Planning 64400 876,560 1.17% 6,520 6,520
Commuter Shuttle 645,0 30,076 0.04% 224 224
IIotel/Shopper Shuttle 64571 208,668 0.28% 1,552 1,552
North Burlingame Shuttle 64572 89,116 0.12% 663 663
Public TV Access 64580 70,000 0.090/0 521 521
Police 65100 8,326,335 11.10% 61,929 61,929
Communications 65150 848,652 1.13% 6,312 6,312
Fire 65200 9,234,200 12.31% 68,682 68,682
Building Inspection 65300 834,911 1.11% 6,210 6,210
Parking 65400 1,392,033 1.86% 10,354 10,354
Disaster Preparedness 65500 95,785 0.13% 712 712
Engineering 66100 2,256,805 3.01% 16,786 16,786
Streets&Storm Drainage 66210 2,448,539 3.26% 18,212 18,212
Sewer Maintenance 66520 5,256,858 7.01% 39,099 39,099
Wastewater Treatment 66530 6,640,576 8.85% 49,391 49,391
Solid Waste Management 66600 603,551 0.800/0 4,489 4,489
Finance Authority-2001 lease Revenue Bond 66841) 580,981 0.77% 4,321 4,321
Finance Authority-Izbrary Refunding Bond 66850 762,590 1.02% 5,672 5,672
Pension Obligation Bond 66860 2,819,474 3.76% 20,971 20,971
Library 67500 3,588,392 4.78% 26,690 26,690
Recreation 68010 3,212,552 4.28% 23,894 23,894
Parks 68020 2,518,414 3.36% 18,731 18,731
WaterOperations 1 69020 1 10,147,607 13.53% 75,476 1 75,476
Total 75,003,582 100.00% $ 557.860 $ 557,860
'Table 2.
2 Derived by dividing each departmental total budget by the City-wide total budget.
3 Total allocable cost of Non-Departmental distributed to other departments.
96
Table B12:Total Indirect Cost Summary
(7,1) 1
1 451 i.rF 0. 21, 11 1-
14,M1 111,311
Ilk—
trNJ
114
I.— 72S 1,141 l, 11,71 (37.—)
"I Z, I5,•yr 1991M (194115
R-)
F.mp4•Jxr WmOro 3594 ::,ON V-1I 1". :4
Ji'6 134500)
.z
1 111 1,` 1!1 1, 17.153 1—ii MI.
141.965 0.05. fbl 2349
12 z- i—I
1". 0.939
"1 11 1. 121511"—
— 4466
N4 11:11
I zIl 141 1'-1 1 1 1-1 10.741 66X1
61- FYr.. 4. — 101 7Mffl2
I .ol3 i,. II I ll.-
114.1 1'51 'A-
-p—,— 21,13
I IL-
xnupnn:nrT Il- 4— 1142
)4698 M.I.
M-
4.."1.'
41.1
"Q+mbured rural nonan of 57","5 .corral 1n lze.rnrage b,1705663
97
For Discussion Purposes Only
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
DRAFT REPORT
WBURUNGAME
M1412-4<10 MuniFinancial
Corporate Office: Office Locations:
27368 Via Industria Anaheim, CA Phoenix, AZ
Suite 110 Lancaster, CA Orlando, FL
Temecula, CA 92590 Los Angeles Regional Office Memphis, TN
Tel: (951) 587-3500 Oakland, CA Seattle, WA
Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Sacramento, CA
Fax: (951) 587-3510
www.muni.com
For Discussion Purposes Only
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................... 1
Chapter1: Introduction............................................................................................. 2
Background and Study Objectives.......................................................................... 2
Public Facilities Financing In California.................................................................. 2
FacilityStandard.................................................................................................... 2
Typesof Facility Standards .....................................................................................................3
DemandStandards..............................................................................................................3
DesignStandards ................................................................................................................ 3
CostStandards .................................................................................................................... 3
Methods to Determine a Facility Standard..............................................................................3
ExistingInventory Method................................................................................................. 3
Planned Facilities Method................................................................................................... 3
MasterPlan Method............................................................................................................ 3
Organization of the Report...................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Growth Projections................................................................................... 5
LandUse Types...................................................................................................... 5
Use of Growth Projections for Development Impact Fees ................... 5
ServicePopulation.................................................................................................. 6
OccupantDensities................................................................................................ 6
GrowthProjections................................................................................................. 7
Chapter3: Police Facilities....................................................................................... 10
ServicePopulation................................................................................................ 10
Police Facility Standard........................................................................................ 11
New Development Contribution............................................................................. 12
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 12
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................ 12
Chapter 4: Fire/Rescue Facilities............................................................................. 14
ServicePopulation................................................................................................ 14
Fire/Rescue Facility Standard.............................................................................. 16
New Development Contribution............................................................................. 17
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 17
FeeSchedule...................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 5: Library Facilities..................................................................................... 19
ServicePopulation................................................................................................ 19
i
ZMuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Library Facility Standard...................................................................................... 20
New Development Contribution............................................................................. 21
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 22
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................ 22
Chapter 6: Parks & Recreation Facilities .................................................................. 24
ServicePopulation................................................................................................ 24
Parks & Recreation Facility Standard ................................................................... 25
NewDevelopment Contribution............................................................................. 27
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 27
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................ 28
Chapter 7: General Public Facilities ......................................................................... 29
ServicePopulation................................................................................................ 29
General Public Facility Standard .......................................................................... 30
New Development Contribution............................................................................. 31
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 32
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................ 32
Chapter 8: Transportation Facilities......................................................................... 34
TripDemand........................................................................................................ 34
Transportation Facility Standard.......................................................................... 35
New Development Contribution............................................................................. 36
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 37
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................ 37
Chapter9: Storm Drain........................................................................................... 39
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)......................................................................... 39
Storm Drain Facility Standard.............................................................................. 40
New Development Contribution............................................................................. 41
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 42
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................ 42
Chapter 10: Water Facilities..................................................................................... 44
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)......................................................................... 44
WaterFacility Standard........................................................................................ 45
New Development Contribution............................................................................. 46
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 47
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................ 47
MMuniFinancial
ii
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 11: Sewer Facilities .................................................................................... 49
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)......................................................................... 49
SewerFacility Standard........................................................................................ 50
New Development Contribution............................................................................. 52
Alternative Funding Sources................................................................................. 52
FeeSchedule........................................................................................................ 52
Chapter 12: Implementation.................................................................................... 54
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP ................................................ 54
Identify Non-fee Revenue Sources......................................................................... 54
InflationAdjustment ...................................................................................:........ 54
Reporting Requirements....................................................................................... 54
Chapter 13: Mitigation Fee Act Findings................................................................... 55
Purposeof Fee...................................................................................................... 55
Useof Fee Revenues............................................................................................. 55
BenefitRelationship............................................................................................. 56
BurdenRelationship ............................................................................................ 56
Proportionality ..................................................................................................... 57
iii
WMuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
LIST OF TABLES
Table2.1: Occupant Density...................................................................................... 6
Table 2.2: Growth Projections.................................................................................... 8
Table 2.3: Summary of Estimated Population............................................................. 9
Table 2.4: Summary of Projected Demographics......................................................... 9
Table 3.1: Police Facilities - Weighting Factors......................................................... 10
Table 3.2: Police Facilities - Service Population ........................................................ 11
Table 3.3: Police Facilities - Standard Cost Per Capita.............................................. 11
Table 3.4: Police Facilities- Cost Per Resident/Worker............................................. 12
Table 3.5: Police Facilities - New Development Contribution..................................... 12
Table 3.6: Police Facilities- Development Impact Fee Schedule................................ 13
Table 4.1: Fire/Rescue Facilities - Weighting Factors ............................................... 15
Table 4.2: Fire/Rescue Facilities - Service Population............................................... 15
Table 4.3: Fire/Rescue Facilities- Standard Cost Per Capita.................................... 16
Table 4.4: Fire/Rescue Facilities- Cost Per Resident/Worker................................... 16
Table 4.5: Fire/Rescue Facilities- New Development Contribution........................... 17
Table 4.6: Fire/Rescue Facilities- Development Impact Fee Schedule...................... 18
Table 5.1: Library Facilities - Weighting Factors....................................................... 19
Table 5.2: Library Facilities - Service Population ...................................................... 20
Table 5.3: Library Facilities - Standard Cost Per Capita ........................................... 21
Table 5.4: Library Facilities - Cost Per Resident/Worker .......................................... 21
Table 5.5: Library Facilities - New Development Contribution................................... 22
Table 5.6: Library Facilities - Impact Fee Schedule .................................................. 23
Table 6.1: Parks&Recreation Facilities-Weighting Factors................................................... 24
Table 6.2: Parks & Recreation Facilities - Service Population.................................... 25
Table 6.3: Parks & Recreation Facilities- Standard Cost Per Capita......................... 26
Table 6.4: Parks&Recreation Facilities-Cost Per Resident/Worker............................... 27
Table 6.5: Parks&Recreation Facilities-New Development Contribution............................ 27
Table 6.6: Parks & Recreation Facilities - Impact Fee Schedule ................................ 28
Table 7.1: General Public Facilities-Weighting Factors .................................................. 29
Table 7.2: General Public Facilities- Service Population........................................... 30
Table 7.3: General Public Facilities- Standard Cost Per Capita................................ 31
Table 7.4: General Public Facilities- Cost Per Resident/Worker............................... 31
MMuniRnamial 1`
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 7.5: General Public Facilities to Accommodate New Development.................... 32
Table 7.6: General Public Facilities - Impact Fee Schedule ....................................... 33
Table 8.1: Transportation Facilities - Trip Rates by Land Use ................................... 34
Table 8.2: Transportation Facilities-Trip Generation by Land Use........................... 35
Table 8.3: Transportation Facilities- Standard Cost Per Trip ................................... 36
Table 8.4:Transportation Facilities-New Development Contribution................................. 37
Table 8.5: Transportation Facilities- Impact Fee Schedule....................................... 38
Table 9.1: Storm Drain - Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors....................................... 39
Table 9.2: Storm Drain Facilities -Total Equivalent Dwelling Units.......................... 40
Table 9.3: Storm Drain Facilities-Standard Cost Per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU)................... 41
Table 9.4: Storm Drain Facilities-New Development Contribution.................................. 42
Table 9.5: Storm Drain Facilities- Impact Fee Schedule........................................... 43
Table 10.1: Water Facilities- Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors................................ 44
Table 10.2: Water Facilities -Total Equivalent Dwelling Units.................................. 45
Table 10.3: Water Facilities - Standard Cost Per .................................................. 46
Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) ............................................................................... 46
Table 10.4: Water Facilities- New Development Contribution................................... 47
Table 10.5: Water Facilities - Impact Fee Schedule................................................... 48
Table 11.1: Sewer Facilities- Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors................................ 49
Table 11.2: Sewer Facilities-Total Equivalent Dwelling Units.................................. 50
Table 11.3: Sewer Facilities-Standard Cost Per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU).................. 51
Table 11.4: Sewer Facilities- New Development Contribution................................... 52
Table 11.5: Sewer Facilities- Impact Fee Schedule .................................................. 53
M MuniRnandal
For Discussion Purposes Only
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of the need for public facilities and capital improvements to
support development within the City of Burlingame, California ("the City'. It is the City's intent
that the costs of these facilities and improvements be shared among the various beneficiaries. New
development should pay the costs associated with growth; therefore, the costs representing future
development's share of facilities and improvements will be imposed on that development in the
form of development impact fees. The existing residents should only bear the costs of facilities and
improvements to meet existing needs; therefore, the costs associated with this "City's share"will be
borne by the City on behalf of current residents.
The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into nine categories listed
below.
➢ Police Facilities ➢ Transportation Facilities
➢ Fire/Rescue Facilities ➢ Storm Drain Facilities
➢ Library Facilities ➢ Water Facilities
➢ Parks and Recreation Facilities ➢ Sewer Facilities
General Public Facilities
Cities and counties can impose development impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation
Fee Act, contained in California Government Code §66000 through §66025. This report provides the
necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of new development impact fees presented in
chapters 3 through 11.
MMunF'mancW 1
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 1 : Introduction
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new
development pays the capital costs associated with growth. To fulfill this objective public agencies
should review and update their fee programs periodically to incorporate the best available
information.
The purpose of this report is to develop new development impact fees that incorporate current
facility plans to serve a 2011 service population. The City should review and update this report and
the calculated fees approximately once every five years to incorporate the best available information.
Public Facilities Financing In California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the
financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
➢ The passage of a series of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978
and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
➢ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next
generation of residents and businesses;and
➢ Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its
own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and
taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the
imposition of assessments,special taxes,and development impact fees also known as public facilities
fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are appropriate when
the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on
the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development
jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for
adoption.
Facility Standard
A facility standard is a policy that indicates the amount of facilities required to accommodate service
demand. Examples of facility standards include building square feet per capita and park acres per
capita. Standards also may be expressed in monetary terms such as the replacement value of
facilities per capita. The adopted facility standard is a critical component in determining new
development's need for new facilities and subsequently the amount of the impact fee. These
standards also determine the new development's fair share of planned facilities and ensure that new
development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development. The adopted facility
standard can be classified into three main types of facility standards.
MMuniFn Add 2
For Discussion Purposes Only
Types of Facility Standards
Demand Standards
The demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth
(for example,park acres per 1,000 residents, traffic level of service, and gallons of water per
day per dwelling unit).
Design Standards
The design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand
(for example, park improvement requirements, street intersection design, and water storage
needs).
Cost Standards
The cost standards determine the cost per unit of demand based on the estimated cost of
facilities (for example cost per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per
day). This study utilizes the cost standard type by analyzing the estimated cost of facilities
and determining cost per capita, cost per vehicle trip, and cost per single-family equivalent
dwelling unit.
Methods to Determine a Facility Standard
The most commonly accepted methods to determining a facility standard are described below.
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method determines a facility standard based on the ratio of existing
facilities to the existing development. Under this approach, new development funds the
expansion of facilities at the same rate as that of existing development has provided facilities
to date. By definition, the existing inventory method does not result in facility deficiencies
attributable to existing development. Therefore, to increase facility standards, the
jurisdiction must secure funding in addition to development impact fees.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method calculates the standard solely based on the ratio of planned
facilities to the increase in demand associated with new development. This method is
appropriate when planned facilities only benefit new development. This method also may be
used when there is excess capacity in existing facilities that can accommodate new
development. In that case new development can fund facilities at a standard lower than the
existing inventory standard and still provide an acceptable level of facilities.
Master Plan Method
The master plan method calculates the standard based on the ratio of all existing plus
planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development). This method is
used when (1) the local agency anticipates increasing its facility standard above the existing
inventory standard, and (2) planned facilities are a part of the system that benefits both
existing and new development. If a jurisdiction opts to increase its facility standard (a
standard that is higher than the existing inventory standard), a deficiency for existing
EMunftar4W 3
For Discussion Purposes Only
development will occur. Consequently, the jurisdiction must secure non-development
impact fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency.
This study uses the existing inventory method described above to determine facility standards for
police, fire/rescue, and general public development impact fee programs. The master plan method
was utilized to determine facility standards for library, parks & recreation, transportation, storm
drain,water,and sewer development impact fee programs.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a development impact fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and
development of projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout
the analysis of different facility categories,and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 11 are devoted to documenting the maximum justified development impact fee
for each of the following nine facility categories:
➢ Police Facilities ➢ Transportation Facilities
➢ Fire/Rescue Facilities ➢ Storm Drain Facilities
➢ Library Facilities ➢ Water Facilities
➢ Parks and Recreation Facilities ➢ Sewer Facilities
➢ General Public Facilities
Chapter 12 identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fee programs,
while the five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed development impact fees in
accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (codified in California Government Code §66000 through
§66025) are summarized in Chapter 13.
NMuniFinancial 4
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 2: Growth Projections
This chapter explains how development projections are used to calculate development impact fees
and summarizes estimates of existing development and projections of growth used for this study.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee,
growth projections distinguish among different land use types. The land use types used in this
analysis are defined below.
➢ Residential
o Single-Family: Detached one-family dwelling units;and
o Multi-Family: All attached single-family dwellings such as duplexes and
condominiums,plus mobile homes,apartments,and dormitories.
➢ Non-Residential
o Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, hotel/motel, and hospital
development.
o Office:All general,professional,and medical office development.
o Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as an industrial warehouse with
living quarters (a live-work designation) or a planned unit development with both single-family and
multi-family uses. In these cases, the development impact fee would be calculated separately for
each land use type. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely
represents the proposed land use type of the development.
Use of Growth Projections for Development
Impact Fees
Estimates of existing development and projections of growth are critical assumptions used to
determine development impact fees presented in the succeeding chapters. These estimates are used
as follows:
➢ Estimates of total development, at the 2011 planning horizon, are used to determine the
total amount of public facilities required to accommodate growth and to allocate related
costs on a per unit basis, for example costs per capita.
➢ Estimates of growth from 2007 to 2011 are used to allocate to new development its fair
share of total planned facility needs.
To measure existing development and future growth, we use population and employment, also
identified as residents and workers, respectively, for the building-related fee categories. We use
these measures because numbers of residents and workers are reasonable indicators of the level of
EMunftaneial 5
For Discussion Purposes Only
demand for public facilities. The City builds public facilities primarily to serve these populations
and, typically, the greater the population the larger the facility required to provide a given level of
service.
Service Population
Different types of development use public facilities at different rates in relation to each other,
depending on the services provided. In Chapters 3 through 11, a specific service population is
identified for each facility type to reflect total demand. The service population weights residential
land uses type against nonresidential land uses based on the relative demand for services between
residents and workers.
Occupant Densities
Occupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase in service population and
amount of the fee. To do this, they must vary by the estimated service population generated by a
particular development project. Developers pay the fee based on the number of additional building
square feet, so the fee schedule must convert service population estimates to this measure of project
size. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by land use type, shown in
Table 2.1.
The residential occupancy density factors shown in the table were derived from the 2000 Census and
from the Department of Finance estimates for January 1, 2007. The nonresidential factors were
based on Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association
of Governments, October 2001 by The Natelson Company. For example, the industrial density
factor represents an average density of light industrial,heavy industrial, and warehouse uses likely to
occur in Burlingame.
Table 2.1: Occupant Density
Land Use Type Density Unit
Residential '
Single-Family 2.82 DU
Multi-Family 1.68 DU
Non-Residential
Office 2.10 1,000 Building SF
Commercial 3.05 1,000 Building SF
Industrial 1.00 1,000 Building SF
Sources: 2000 Census, Tables H31-H33; Natelson
Company; City of Burlingame; MuniFinancial.
MMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Growth Projections
Table 2.2 details the demographic assumptions used in this analysis. The base year for this study is
the year 2007 for all categories. The existing facilities in 2007 will make up the existing facilities
standard in our study.
The population and employment estimates are based on Association of Bay Area Governments'
(ABAG) forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area. The allocations of population and employment
to different development types were derived based on 2000 Census and Department of Finance
data. The estimated number of dwelling units and number of building square feet, in thousands,
were calculated for each development type by dividing the number of residents by the density per
dwelling unit or by dividing the number of workers by the density per 1,000 building square feet (see
Table 2.2).
Table 2.3 summarizes the estimated number of residents and workers, while Table 2.4 shows the
projected demographics.
MMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 2.2: Growth Projections
Growth
2007 2011 (2007-2011)
Residential
Residents'
Single-Family 13,529 13,710 180
Multi-Family 14,930 15,129 199
28,459 28,839 379
Density(per DU) 2
Single-Family 2.82 2.82
Multi-Family 1.68 1.68
Estimated Dwelling Units 3
Single-Family 4,790 4,853 64
Multi-Family 8,903 9,021 119
13,692 13,875 183
Non-Residential
Workers 1
Office 3,927 4,116 189
Commercial 14,330 15,020 690
Industrial 4,723 4,950 227
22,980 24,086 1,107
Density(per 1,000 SF)2
Office 2.10 2.10
Commercial 3.05 3.05
Industrial 1.00 1.00
Estimated Building Square Feet(OOOs)4
Office 1,870 1,960 90
Commercial 4,698 4,925 226
Industrial 4,723 4,950 227
11,291 11,835 544
Total Population 5 51,439 52,925 1,486
ABAG's forcasts for the San Francisco Bay Area; Department of Finance, California;
Census 2000.
2 Table 2.1.
3 Number of residents divided by the density per dwelling unit.
4 Number of workers divided by the density per 1,000 Building SF.
Sources: ABAG; DOF, California; Census 2000; City of Burlingame; MuniFinancial.
S MuniFinancial 8
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 2.3: Summary of Estimated Population
Growth
2007 2011 (2007-2011)
Residents 28,459 28,839 379
Workers 22,980 24,086 1,107
Total 51,439 52,925 1,486
Source: Table 2.2.
Table 2.4: Summary of Projected Demographics
Growth
2007 2011 (2007-2011
Residential (Dwelling Units)
Single-Family 4,790 4,853 64
Multi-Family 8,903 9,021 119
Total Dwelling Units 13,692 13,875 183
Non-Residential (Building SF
in 000s)
Office 1,870 1,960 90
Commercial 4,698 4,925 226
Industrial 4,723 4,950 227
Total Building Square Feet 11,291 11,835 544
Source: Table 2.2.
SMuniFnancial 9
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 3: Police Facilities
This chapter presents an analysis of the need for police stations and related facilities to
accommodate new development in the City of Burlingame. A fee schedule is presented based on
the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its
needs.
Service Population
The City's police facilities serve both residents and businesses. The need for these services and
associated facilities is measured by the City's service population, which is the number of residents
and workers within its service area.
In calculating the service population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect lower per
capita service demand. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling
units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker demand for services is less than average
per-resident demand. Absent any local data we assumed a 0.31-weighting factor for workers. It is
based on a 40-hour workweek for workers divided by 128 hours a resident potentially spends in the
City in a week. The 128 hours is the difference between 168 hours in a week and the 40 hours spent
working. As indicated in a range of studies, the factor used by other cities varies significantly;
therefore we calculated this weighting factor with the intent of maintaining a reasonable relationship
between the demand for facilities and each land use's proportionate share of the costs. Table 3.1
shows the calculated weighting factors, and Table 3.2 shows the estimated service population in
2007 and 2011 based on the estimated population shown in Table 2.3 and on the weighting factors
depicted on Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Police Facilities -Weighting Factors
Daily Hours
Residents Workers
Hours (M-F) 16 8
Hours (S-S) 24 0
Weekly Hours 128 40
Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31
Sources: City of Burlingame; MuniFinancial.
10
MMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 3.2: Police Facilities-Service Population
Service—
ResidentsWorkers' Population 3
Existing (2007) 28,459 22,980 35,641
New Development(2007-2011) 379 1,107 725
Total (2011) 28,839 24,086 36,366
Weighting Factor 2 1.00 0.31
' Table 2.3.
2 Table 3.1.
3 Service population derived by multiplying the number of residents by a weighting
factor of 1.00 and by multiplying the number of workers by a weighting factor of
0.31.
Police Facility Standard
The existing inventory method was used to determine cost standard for police facility based on the
ratio of existing facilities to existing development. Table 3.3 shows the standard cost per capita,
which was derived by dividing the total value of existing facilities by the projected service population
in 2007. Table 3.4 depicts cost per resident and per worker, which were calculated using cost per
capita shown in Table 3.3 and weighting factors shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.3: Police Facilities—Standard Cost Per Capita
Cost Per
Square Feet' Square Foot Total Cost'
Existing
Police Facilities
Police Station 26,160 $ 140 $ 3,662,944
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles 850,463
Equipment 892,495
Total Existing Inventory $ 5,405,902
Existing Service Population (2007)2 35,641
Cost Per Capita $ 152
' City of Burlingame.
2 Table 3.2.
M MunilFinancial 11
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 3.4:Police Facilities—Cost Per Resident/Worker
Cost Per Capita Weighting Cost Per
Factor 2 ResidentlWorker
Residents $ 152 1.00 $ 152
Workers 152 0.31 47
' Table 3.3.
1 Table 3.1.
New Development Contribution
The existing inventory method was used to determine a facility standard for police facilities based on
the ratio of existing facilities to the existing development. By definition, the existing inventory
method does not result in facility deficiencies attributable to existing development, and new
development funds the expansion or improvements of facilities at the same rate as that of existing
development has provided to date. Table 3.5 presents the estimated amount to be contributed by
new development based on the cost standard per capita calculated for police facility depicted in
Table 3.3 and on the projected service population for new development shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.5: Police Facilities—New Development Contribution
Total
Facility Standard Per Capita $ 152
Service Population Growth (2007-201 1) 2 725
Total Generated by New Development $ 109,987
' Table 3.3.
z Table 3.2.
Alternative Funding Sources
Although a major assumption of the existing inventory method is that there is no deficiency, the
City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund facility costs
associated with deficiency,if any. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general
fund revenues, or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would require two-thirds voter
approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require majority property owner
approval.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the police development impact fees based on the calculated cost standard shown in
Table 3.4. The cost per resident is converted to a fee per dwelling unit based on the density per
dwelling unit, and the cost per worker is converted to a fee per 1,000 building square feet based on
12
aMuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
the density per 1,000 building square feet. The net impact fee includes an administrative charge to
fund costs that include:
A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
➢ Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
Table 3.6:Police Facilities—Development Impact Fee Schedule
Cost Per Net
Land Use Unit Resident/WorkerDensit 2 Impact Fee 3 Admin.Fee° Impact Fee 5
Residential
Single-Family DU $ 152 2.82 $ 428 $ 9 $ 437
Multi-Family DU 152 1.68 254 5 259
Non-Residential
Office 1,000 Building SF 47 2.10 100 2 102
Commercial 1,000 Building SF 47 3.05 145 3 147
Industrial 1,000 Building SF 47 1.00 47 1 48
Table 3.4.
Z Table 2.1.
3 Fee per resident multiplied by the density per DU or fee per employee multiplied by the density per 1,000 building SF.
"Administrative charge of 2.00%
5 Fee per DU plus administrative fee per DU or fee per 1,000 building SF plus administrative fee per 1,000 building SF.
EMuniFnancial 13
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 4: Fire/Rescue Facilities
This chapter presents an analysis of the need for fire/rescue stations and related facilities to
accommodate new development in the City of Burlingame. A fee schedule is presented based on
the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its
needs.
Service Population
The City's fire/rescue facilities serve both residents and businesses in terms of saving lives and
property. The need for these services and associated facilities is measured by the City's service
population, which represents a relative demand of the facilities by residents and workers within the
service area.
Since fire/rescue facilities serve both residents and workers in terms of saving lives and property,
two components are taken into account in determining the service population. One of the
components is medical which relates to saving lives, and the other is structural which relates to
saving property. For the purpose of this study, the relative demand for medical service is assumed
to be 70% while the relative demand for structural service is assumed to be 30% based on our
experience working with other public agencies.
As mentioned above, the first component is medical which relates to saving lives. Typical workers
may need fire/rescue services at any time during work hours or 40 hours per week. Typical
residents may need fire/rescue services at any time during 128 hours per week, given the residents
work 40 hours per week. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that workers have lower weighting
factor than that of residents to reflect lower per capita service usage. This analysis indicated that the
weighting factor for residents is 1.00 while the weighting factor for workers is 0.31, as shown in
Table 4.1.
The second component is structural service,which relates to protecting property. It is reasonable to
assume that business buildings need protection at all time during 168 hours per week regardless
whether workers are present in the buildings or not. Using the same logic,residential dwelling units
need protection at all time during 168 hours per week regardless whether residents are present at
home or not. Therefore,in term of saving property,the weighting factor for residents is 1.00,which
is the same as the weighting factor for workers,as shown in Table 4.1.
The calculated medical and structural weighting factors and the formulas below were utilized to
determine the weighting factors for residents and workers, which represent a relative demand of
fire/rescue facilities by residents and workers. These weighting factors are shown in Table 4.1
below.
➢ Weighting Factor RESIDENTS = (70% x Medical weighting of 1.00) + (30% x Structural &
weighting of 1.00) = 1.00
➢ Weighting Factor WoRKE,s= (70%x Medical weighting of 0.31) + (30%x Structural weighting
of 1.00) = 0.52
14
EMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 4.1: Fire/Rescue Facilities-Weighting Factors
Relative Demand
Medical 70%
Structural 30%
UL OIJMF
Daily Hours
Residents Workers
Hours (M-F) 16 8
Hours (S-S) 24 0
Weekly Hours 128 40
Medical Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31
Structural
Daily Hours
Residents Workers
Hours (M-F) 24 24
Hours (S-S) 24 24
Weekly Hours 168 168
Structural Weighting Factor 1.00 1.00
Weighting Factor 1.00 0.52
Sources: City of Burlingame; MuniFinancial.
Table 4.2 shows the estimated service population in 2007 and 2011.
Table 4.2: Fire/Rescue Facilities-Service Population
Service
ResidentsWorkers' Population 3
Existing (2007) 28,459 22,980 40,380
New Development(2007-2011) 379 1,107 953
Total (2011) 28,839 24,086 41,333
Weighting Factor 2 1.00 0.52
' Table 2.3.
2 Table 4.1.
3 Service population derived by multiplying the number of residents by a
weighting factor of 1.00 and by multiplying the number of workers by a
weighting factor of 0.52.
S MuniFnancial 15
For Discussion Purposes Only
Fire/Rescue Facility Standard
The existing inventory method was used to determine fire/rescue cost standard for fire/rescue
facility based on the ratio of existing facilities to the existing development. Table 4.3 shows the
standard cost per capita, which was derived by dividing the total value of existing facilities by the
projected service population in 2011. Table 4.4 depicts cost per resident and per worker, which
were calculated using cost per capita shown in Table 4.3 and weighting factors shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.3: Fire/Rescue Facilities—Standard Cost Per Capita
Cost Per
Square Feet' Square Foot Total Cost'
Existing
Fire/Rescue Facilities
Fire Station#1 13,925 $ 216 $ 3,006,809
Hose Tower 1,600 46 73,018
Fire Station Garage 730 147 107,310
Fire Station#2 5,254 260 1,363,633
Fire Station#3 3,835 405 1,554,541
Admin. Offices 2,116 79 167,904
F.S. Drill Tower 35,716
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles 2,117,789
Equipment 569,126
Total Existing Inventory $ 8,995,846
Existing Service Population (2007)2 40,380
Cost Per Capita $ 223
' City of Burlingame.
`Table 4.2.
Table 4.4: Fire/Rescue Facilities—Cost Per Resident/Worker
Cost Per Capita Weighting Cost Per
' Factor 2 Resident[Worker
Residents $ 223 1.00 $ 223
Workers 223 0.52 116
' Table 4.3.
z Table 4.1.
aMuniFnancial 16
For Discussion Purposes Only
New Development Contribution
The existing inventory method was used to determine a facility standard for fire/rescue facilities
based on the ratio of existing facilities to the existing development. By definition, the existing
inventory method does not result in facility deficiencies attributable to existing development, and
new development funds the expansion or improvements of facilities at the same rate as that of
existing development has provided to date. Table 4.5 presents the estimated amount to be
contributed by new development based on the cost standard per capita calculated for fire/rescue
facility depicted in Table 4.3 and on the projected service population for new development shown in
Table 4.2.
Table 4.5: Fire/Rescue Facilities—New Development Contribution
Total
Facility Standard Per Capita $ 223
Service Population Growth (2007-201 1) z
953
Total Generated by New Development $ 212,389
' Table 4.3.
`Table 4.2.
Alternative Funding Sources
Although a major assumption of the existing inventory method is that there is no deficiency, the
City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund facility costs
associated with deficiency,if any. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general
fund revenues,or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would require two-thirds voter
approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require majority property owner
approval.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.6 shows the fire/rescue development impact fees based on the calculated cost standard
shown in Table 4.4. The cost per resident is converted to a fee per dwelling unit based on the
density per dwelling unit, and the fee per worker is converted to a fee per 1,000 building square feet
based on the density per 1,000 building square feet. The net impact fee includes an administrative
charge to fund costs that include:
➢ A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
➢ Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
➢ Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
SMuniFnancial
17
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 4.6: Fire/Rescue Facilities—Development Impact Fee Schedule
Cost Per Net
Land Use Unit Resident/WorkerDens it 2 Impact Fee 3 Admin.Fee° Impact Fee 5
Residential
Single-Family DU $ 223 2.82 $ 629 $ 13 $ 642
Multi-Family DU 223 1.68 374 7 381
Non-Residential
Office 1,000 Building SF 116 2.10 243 5 248
Commercial 1,000 Building SF 116 3.05 352 7 360
Industrial 1,000 Building SF 116 1.00 116 2 118
'Table 4.4.
2 Table 2.1.
3 Fee per resident multiplied by the density per DU or fee per employee multiplied by the density per 1,000 building SF.
°Administrative charge of 2.00%
5 Fee per DU plus administrative fee per DU or fee per 1,000 building SF plus administrative fee per 1,000 building SF.
18
ZMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 5: Library Facilities
This chapter presents an analysis of the need for library and related facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of Burlingame. A fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these
facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
The City's library facilities serve both residents and businesses. The need for these services and
associated facilities is measured by the City's service population, which is the number of residents
and workers within its service area.
In calculating the service population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect lower per
capita service demand. Absent any local data we assumed a 0.27-weighting factor for workers based
on the "Phoenix Park and Library EDU Factors" study, conducted for the City of Phoenix by
Hausrath Economics Group. Also, as indicated in a range of studies, the factors used by other
cities, although similar to the 0.27 weighting, are varied. Therefore, we chose the weighting factor
from Phoenix for the allocation of the burden and maintaining a reasonable relationship between
the demand for facilities and each land use's proportionate share of the costs. It is our belief that the
weighting factor was derived from the most extensive data and most accurately represents the City
of Burlingame. Table 5.1 shows the weighting factors, while Table 5.2 shows the estimated service
population in 2007 and 2011.
Table 5.1: Library Facilities-Weighting Factors
Residents Workers
Weighting Factor1.00 0.27
Based on "Phoenix Park & Library EDU Factors" study,
Hausrath Economics Group, September 1998.
MMuniFnancial
19
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 5.2: Library Facilities-Service Population
Service
Residents Workers 1 Population 3
Existing (2007) 28,459 22,980 34,664
New Development(2007-2011) 379 1,107 678
Total (2011) 28,839 24,086 35,342
Weighting Factor 2 1.00 0.27
1 Table 2.2.
2 Table 5.1.
3 Service population derived by multiplying the number of residents by a
weighting factor of 1.00 and by multiplying the number of workers by a weighting
factor of 0.27.
Library Facility Standard
The master plan method was used to determine library facility standard based on the ratio of all
existing plus planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development). Planned
facilities include, but are not limited to, buildings and/or any capital improvement projects that are a
part of the system that benefits both existing and new development. In this case, the integration
system is a part of the library system that benefits both existing and new development.
Table 5.3 shows the standard cost per capita,which was derived by dividing the total cost of existing
and planned facilities by the projected service population in 2011. Table 5.4 depicts cost per
resident and per worker, which were calculated using cost per capita shown in Table 5.3 and
weighting factors shown in Table 5.1.
20
S MuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 5.3: Library Facilities—Standard Cost Per Capita
Cost Per
Square FeetSquare Foot Total Cost'
Existinq
Library Facilities
Library 54,936 $ 203 $ 11,125,800
Branch Library 2,800 549 1,537,862
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles 15,000
Equipment, Books, Magazines, etc. 16,455,787
Subtotal 29,134,449
Planned
Library-Capital Improvement Project
Library System Integration 100,000
Subtotal 100,000
Total Existing& Planned Facilities $ 29,234,449
Service Population (201 1)2 35,342
Cost Per Capita $ 827
' City of Burlingame.
2 Table 5.2.
Table 5.4: Library Facilities—Cost Per Resident/Worker
Cost Per Capita Weighting Cost Per
' Factor 2 Resident/Worker
Residents $ 827 1.00 $ 827
Workers 827 0.27 223
' Table 5.3.
2 Table 5.1.
New Development Contribution
The master planned method was used to determine a facility standard for library facilities based on
the ratio of existing and planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development).
Planned facilities include, but are not limited to, buildings and/or any capital improvement projects
that are a part of the system that benefits both existing and new development. Table 5.5 presents
the estimated amount to be contributed by new development based on the cost standard per capita
calculated for library facility depicted in Table 5.3 and on the projected service population for new
development shown in Table 5.2.
SMuniFinancial
21
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 5.5: Library Facilities—New Development Contribution
Total
Facility Standard Per Capita $ 827
Service Population Growth (2007- 201 1) 2 678
Total Generated by New Development $ 560,917
' Table 5.3.
`Table 5.2.
Alternative Funding Sources
The City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund any facility
costs associated with deficiency. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general
fund revenues,or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would require two-thirds voter
approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require majority property owner
approval.
Fee Schedule
Table 5.6 shows the library development impact fees based on the calculated cost standard shown in
Table 5.4. The cost per resident is converted to a fee per dwelling unit based on the density per
dwelling unit, and the cost per worker is converted to a fee per 1,000 building square feet based on
the density per 1,000 building square feet. The net impact fee includes an administrative charge to
fund costs that include:
A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
➢ Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
22
ImMunF
inancial JJ
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 5.6: Library Facilities—Impact Fee Schedule
Cost Per Net
Land Use Unit Resident/WorkerDensity2 Impact Fee 3 Admin.Fee° Impact Fee 5
Residential
Single-Family DU $ 827 2.82 $ 2,337 $ 47 $ 2,383
Multi-Family DU 827 1.68 1,387 28 1,415
Non-Residential
Office 1,000 Building SF 223 2.10 469 9 478
Commercial 1,000 Building SF 223 3.05 681 14 695
Industrial 1,000 Building SF 223 1.00 223 4 228
Table 5.4.
2 Table 2.1.
3 Fee per resident multiplied by the density per DU or fee per employee multiplied by the density per 1,000 building SF.
°Administrative charge of 2.00%
5 Fee per DU plus administrative fee per DU or fee per 1,000 building SF plus administrative fee per 1,000 building SF.
EMuniFinancial 23
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 6: Parks & Recreation Facilities
This chapter presents an analysis of the need for parks &recreation facilities and related facilities to
accommodate new development in the City of Burlingame. A fee schedule is presented based on
the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its
needs.
Service Population
The City's parks & recreation facilities serve both residents and businesses. The need for these
services and associated facilities is measured by the City's service population,which is the number of
residents and workers within its service area.
In calculating the service population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect lower per
capita service demand. Absent any local data we assumed a 0.27-weighting factor for workers based
on the "Park and Library EDU Factors" study, conducted for the City of Phoenix by Hausrath
Economics Group. Also,as indicated in a range of studies, the factor used by other cities, although
similar to the 0.27 weighting, varies; therefore we chose the weighting factor from Phoenix for the
allocation of the burden and maintaining a reasonable relationship between the demand for facilities
and each land use's proportionate share of the costs. It is our belief that the weighting factor was
derived from the most extensive data and most accurately represents the City of Burlingame. Table
6.1 shows the weighting factors while Table 6.2 shows the estimated service population in 2007 and
2011.
Table 6.1:Packs&Recreation Facilities-Weighting Factors
Residents Workers
Weighting Factor1.00 0.27
1 Based on "Phoenix Park & Library EDU Factors" study,
Hausrath Economics Group, September 1998.
24
IMMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 6.2: Parks& Recreation Facilities-Service Population
Service
ResidentsWorkers' Population 3
Existing (2007) 28,459 22,980 34,664
New Development(2007-2011) 379 1,107 678
Total (2011) 28,839 24,086 35,342
Weighting Factor 2 1.00 0.27
' Table 2.2.
2 Table 6.1.
3 Service population derived by multiplying the number of residents by a
weighting factor of 1.00 and by multiplying the number of workers by a weighting
factor of 0.27.
Parks & Recreation Facility Standard
The master plan method was used to determine parks & recreation facility standard based on the
ratio of all existing plus planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development).
Table 6.3 shows the standard cost per capita,which was derived by dividing the total cost of existing
and planned facilities by the projected service population in 2011. Table 6.4 depicts cost per
resident and per worker, which were calculated using cost per capita shown in Table 6.3 and
weighting factors shown in Table 6.1.
MMuniFnancial 25
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 6.3: Parks&Recreation Facilities—Standard Cost Per Capita
Cost Per
Square Feet Square Foot Total Cost
Existin
Parks& Recreational Facilities
Recreation Center 19,157 $ 120 $ 2,294,373
Lions Building 2,526 95 239,454
Wash. Park/Bldg 2,337 108 251,672
Restrooms 168 171 28,717
Pre-School 2,108 247 520,659
Restrooms 225 241 54,146
Restrooms 450 102 45,739
Bayside Park/Conc 289 109 31,370
Bayside Park/Conc 196 84 16,374
Maintenance#1 1,100 270 297,520
Maintenance#2 800 248 198,346
Restroom 168,212
Gazebo 5,969
Recreation Bldg 61,983
Electrical Bldg 198,346
Alpine Playground 18,595
Laguna Park 32,231
Paloma Playground 24,793
Pershing Playground 13,636
Victoria Park 17,356
Soccer Playground 61,983
Park Playground 270,504
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles 667,629
Equipment 713,419
Subtotal 6,233,026
Planned
Parks&Recreation-Capital Improvement Projects
Lower Bayside Park Improvements 1,000,000
Billage Park Picnic/Court -
Subtotal 1,000,000
Total Existing & Planned Facilities $ 7,233,026
Service Population (201 1)2 35,342
Cost Per Capita $ 205
City of Burlingame.
2 Table 6.2.
26
SMuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 6.4:Parks&Recreation Facilities—Cost Per Resident/Worker
Cost Per Capita Weighting Cost Per
' Factor 2 Resident/Worker
Residents $ 205 1.00 $ 205
Workers 205 0.27 55
' Table 6.3.
2 Table 6.1.
New Development Contribution
Table 6.5 presents the estimated amount to be contributed by new development based on the cost
standard per capita calculated for parks & recreation facility depicted in Table 6.3 and on the
projected service population for new development shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.5:Parks&Recreation Facilities—New Development Contribution
Total
Facility Standard Per Capita ' $ 205
Service Population Growth (2007-201 1)2 678
Total Generated by New Development $ 138,779
Total Cost of Planned Facilities ' $ 1,000,000
Deficiency To Be Funded by Non-Impact Fee Revenue: $ (861,221)
' Table 6.3.
1 Table 6.2.
The importance of Table 6.5 is the bottom line that shows the share of planned facility costs that
must come from revenue sources other than development impact fees. This amount represents the
remainder after allocating to new development its share of those costs. The City can raise the
funding needed to complement development impact fee revenues over the planning horizon
(through 2011). This funding is necessary to justify the fee imposed on new development using the
master plan standard documented here. If this funding does not materialize, then new development
would have paid too high a fee.
Alternative Funding Sources
The City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund the non-
development impact fee share of planned facility costs. Likely potential sources of revenue include
existing or new general fund revenues, or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would
require two-thirds voter approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require
majority property owner approval.
MMuniFnancial 27
For Discussion Purposes Only
Fee Schedule
Table 6.6 shows the parks & recreation development impact fees based on the calculated cost
standard shown in Table 6.4. The cost per resident is converted to a fee per dwelling unit based on
the density per dwelling unit, and the cost per worker is converted to a fee per 1,000 building square
feet based on the density per 1,000 building square feet. The net impact fee includes an
administrative charge to fund costs that include:
➢ A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
➢ Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
➢ Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
Table 6.6: Parks& Recreation Facilities—Impact Fee Schedule
Cost Per Net
Land Use Unit Resident/WorkerDensity2 Impact Fee 3 Admin.Fee° Impact Fee 5
Residential
Single-Family DU $ 205 2.82 $ 578 $ 12 $ 590
Multi-Family DU 205 1.68 343 7 350
Non-Residential
Office 1,000 Building SF 55 2.10 116 2 118
Commercial 1,000 Building SF 55 3.05 169 3 172
Industrial 1,000 Building SF 55 1.00 55 1 56
'Table 6.4.
2 Table 2.1.
3 Fee per resident multiplied by the density per DU or fee per employee multiplied by the density per 1,000 building SF.
Administrative charge of 2.00%
5 Fee per DU plus administrative fee per DU or fee per 1,000 building SF plus administrative fee per 1,000 building SF.
28
EMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 7: General Public Facilities
This chapter presents an analysis of the need for general public facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of Burlingame. A fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these
facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
The City's general public facilities serve both residents and businesses. The need for these services
and associated facilities is measured by the City's service population, which is the number of
residents and workers within its service area.
In calculating the service population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect lower per
capita service demand. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling
units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker demand for services is less than average
per-resident demand. Absent any local data we assumed a 0.31-weighting factor for workers. It is
based on a 40-hour workweek for workers divided by 128 hours a resident potentially spends in the
City in a week. The 128 hours is the difference between 168 hours in a week and the 40 hours spent
working. As indicated in a range of studies, the factor used by other cities varies significantly
therefore we calculated this weighting factor with the intent of maintaining a reasonable relationship
between the demand for facilities and each land use's proportionate share of the costs. Table 7.1
shows the calculated weighting factors, and Table 7.2 shows the estimated service population in
2007 and 2011.
Table 7.1:General Public Facilities—Weighting Factors
Daily Hours
Residents Workers
Hours (M-F) 16 8
Hours(S-S) 24 0
Weekly Hours 128 40
Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31
Sources: City of Burlingame; MuniFinancial.
SMuniFnancial 29
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 7.2: General Public Facilities—Service Population
Service
Residents Workers 1 Population 3
Existing (2007) 28,459 22,980 35,641
New Development(2007-2011) 379 1,107 725
Total (2011) 28,839 24,086 36,366
Weighting Factor 2 1.00 0.31
1 Table 2.2.
2 Table 7.1.
3 Service population derived by multiplying the number of residents by a
weighting factor of 1.00 and by multiplying the number of workers by a weighting
factor of 0.31.
General Public Facility Standard
The existing inventory method was used to determine general public facility standard based on the
ratio of existing facilities to the existing development. Table 7.3 shows the standard cost per capita,
which was derived by dividing the total cost of existing facilities by the projected service population
in 2007. Table 7.4 depicts cost per resident and per worker, which were calculated using cost per
capita shown in Table 7.3 and weighting factors shown in Table 7.1.
a MuniFnancial 30
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 7.3: General Public Facilities—Standard Cost Per Capita
Cost Per
Square Feet Square Foot Total Cost
Existing
General Public Facilities
City Hall 20,138 $ 177 $ 3,564,785
Parking Structure 50,667 50 2,533,350
Auto Repair 3,835 75 289,142
Carriage House 2,116 109 231,649
Grandstand 5,929 115 683,366
Greyhound Depot 763 257 196,407
Golf Center 4,174 327 1,363,633
Corporation Yard 52,000 241 12,510,386
Corp Yard 1,400 190 266,000
Corp Yard 10,800 85 923,360
Corp Yard 7,900 119 937,700
Grandstnd/Lites 371,899
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles 92,000
Equipment 10,822,761
Total Existing Inventory $ 34,786,438
Existing Service Population (2007) 2 36,366
Cost Per Capita $ 957
City of Burlingame.
2 Table 7.2.
Table 7.4: General Public Facilities—Cost Per Resident/Worker
Cost Per Capita Weighting Cost Per
1 Factor 2 Resident/Worker
Residents $ 957 1.00 $ 957
Workers 957 0.31 299
Table 7.3.
2 Table 7.1.
New Development Contribution
The existing inventory method was used to determine a facility standard for general public facilities
based on the ratio of existing facilities to the existing development. By definition, the existing
inventory method does not result in facility deficiencies attributable to existing development, and
new development funds the expansion or improvements of facilities at the same rate as that of
existing development has provided to date. Table 7.5 presents the estimated amount to be
31
MMuninancial
F
For Discussion Purposes Only
contributed by new development based on the cost standard per capita calculated for general public
facility depicted in Table 7.3 and on the projected service population for new development shown in
Table 7.2.
Table 7.5:General Public Facilities to Accommodate New Development
Total
Facility Standard Per Capita ' $ 957
Service Population Growth (2007 - 201 1) 2 725
Total Generated by New Development $ 693,641
' Table 7.3.
z Table 7.2.
Alternative Funding Sources
Although a major assumption of the existing inventory method is that there is no deficiency, the
City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund facility costs
associated with deficiency,if any. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general
fund revenues,or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would require two-thirds voter
approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require majority property owner
approval.
Fee Schedule
Table 7.6 shows the general public development impact fees based on the cost standard shown in
Table 7.4. The cost per resident is converted to a fee per dwelling unit based on the density per
dwelling unit, and the cost per worker is converted to a fee per 1,000 building square feet based on
the density per 1,000 building square feet. The net impact fee includes an administrative charge to
fund costs that include:
➢ A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
➢ Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
➢ Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
MMuniFnancial 32
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 7.6: General Public Facilities—Impact Fee Schedule
Cost Per Net
Land Use Unit ResidenUWorkerDensity2 Impact Fee 3 Admin.Fee° Impact Fee 5
Residential
Single-Family DU $ 957 2.82 $ 2,702 $ 54 $ 2,756
Multi-Family DU 957 1.68 1,604 32 1,636
Non-Residential
Office 1,000 Building SF 299 2.10 628 13 640
Commercial 1,000 Building SF 299 3.05 912 18 930
Industrial 1,000 Building SF 299 1.00 299 6 305
'Table 7.4.
2 Table 2.1.
3 Fee per resident multiplied by the density per DU or fee per employee multiplied by the density per 1,000 building SF.
4 Administrative charge of 2.00%
5 Fee per DU plus administrative fee per DU or fee per 1,000 building SF plus administrative fee per 1,000 building SF.
EMuniFinancial 33
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 8: Transportation Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for streets and related transportation facilities to
accommodate growth within the City of Burlingame. It documents a reasonable relationship
between new development and a transportation fee to fund streets and related transportation
facilities that serve new development.
Trip Demand
According to ITE Trip Generation Nlanual, Th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, a single-family dwelling unit generates 9.57 trips, a multi-family dwelling unit generates
6.72 trips, a office land use generates 11.01 trips per 1,000 building square feet, a commercial land
use generates 44.32 trips per 1,000 building square feet, and an industrial land use generates 6.97
trips per 1,000 building square feet during a weekday. This information is summarized in Table 8.1
below.
Table 8.1:Transportation Facilities-Trip Rates by Land Use
Trip Rate
Land Use Type ITE Code (Weekday Rate) Unit
Residential
Single-Family 210 9.57 Per DU
Multi-Family 220 6.72 Per DU
Non-Residential
Office 710 11.01 Per 1,000 Building SF
Commercial 814 44.32 Per 1,000 Building SF
Industrial 110 6.97 Per 1,000 Building SF
Source: Trip Generation Mannuals, 7th Edition, ITE.
Table 8.2 summarizes the estimated number of single-family dwelling units and of multi-family
dwelling units in 2007 and 2011. It also shows the estimated number building square feet, in
thousands, for nonresidential establishments in 2007 and 2011. Multiplying the trip rate of each land
use type by the number of dwelling units or by the building square feet derives the estimated
number of trips that will be generated by each land use category.
3-1
EMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 8.2:Transportation Facilities-Trip Generation by Land Use
Estimation 2 Estimated Trip Generation 3
Growth Growth
Land Use Type Trip Rate2007 2011 2007:1211 2007 2011 (2007-2011
Residential(Dwelling Units)
Single-Family 9.57 4,790 4,853 64 45,836 46,447 611
Multi-Family 6.72 8,903 9,021 119 59,827 60,624 797
Subtotal-Residential 13,692 13,875 183 105,662 107,071 1,408
Non-Residential(Building SF
in'000s)
Office 11.01 1,870 1,960 90 20,588 21,579 991
Commercial 44.32 4,698 4,925 226 208,233 218,260 10,027
Industrial 6.97 4,723 4,950 227 32,919 34,504 1,585
Subtotal-Nonresidential 11,291 11,835 544 261,739 274,343 12,604
Total Trips 367,402 381,414 14,012
Table 8.1.Trip rate per dwelling unit or per 1,000 Building SF.
2 Table 8.2. Estimated number of dwelling units or estimated number of building square feet which is in thoussands.
3 Multiplied trip rate of each land use by the number of dwellings units or by the number of building square feet.
Transportation Facility Standard
The master plan method was used to determine transportation facility standard based on the ratio of
all existing plus planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development). Table 8.3
shows the standard cost per trip, which was derived by dividing the total cost of existing and
planned facilities by the projected total trips in 2011.
ZMuniFnancial
35
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 8.3:Transportation Facilities—Standard Cost Per Trip
Square Cost Per
Yard Square Yard Total Cost
Existin
Transportation Facilities
Arterial 442,571 $ 40.51 $ 17,928,551
Collector 381,914 40.51 15,471,336
Residential 545,190 36.45 19,872,176
Other 131,401 36.45 4,789,566
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles 472,139
Equipment 129,559
Subtotal 58,663,328
Planned
Transportation-Capital Improvement Projects
Traffic Signals 1,200,000
Downtown Improvements 1,600,000
Bike Paths -
Property Purchases -
Subtotal 2,800,000
Total Existing& Planned Facilities $ 61,463,328
Total Trips (201 1)2 381,414
Cost Per Trip $ 161
City of Burlingame.
2 Table 8.2.
New Development Contribution
Table 8.4 presents the estimated amount to be contributed by new development based on the cost
standard per trip calculated for parks &recreation facility depicted in Table 8.3 and on the projected
trip generation for new development shown in Table 8.2.
36
MMuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 8.4:Transportation Facilities—New Development Contribution
Total
Facility Standard Per Trip $ 161
Total Trips Generated by Growth(2007-201 1)2 14,012
Total Generated by New Development $ 2,258,003
Total Cost of Planned Facilities' $ 2,800,000
Deficiency To Be Funded by Non-Impact Fee Revenue ' $ (541,997)
' Table 8.3.
z Table 8.2.
The importance of Table 8.4 is the bottom line that shows the share of planned facility costs that
must come from revenue sources other than development impact fees. This amount represents the
remainder after allocating to new development its share of those costs. The City can raise the
funding needed to complement development impact fee revenues over the planning horizon
(through 2011). This funding is necessary to justify the fee imposed on new development using the
master plan standard documented here. If this funding does not materialize, then new development
would have paid too high a fee.
Alternative Funding Sources
The City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund the non-
development impact fee share of planned facility costs. Likely potential sources of revenue include
existing or new general fund revenues, or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would
require two-thirds voter approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require
majority property owner approval.
Fee Schedule
Table 8.5 shows the transportation development impact fees based on the cost standard shown in
Table 8.3 The cost per trip is converted to a fee per dwelling unit based on the trip rate per
dwelling unit and to a fee per 1,000 building square feet based on the trip rate per 1,000 building
square feet.. The net impact fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include:
A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
➢ Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
➢ Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
SMuniFnancial 37
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 8.5:Transportation Facilities—Impact Fee Schedule
Cost Net
Land Use Unit Trip Rate' Per Tri 2 Impact Fee 3 Admin. Fee 4 Impact Fee e
Residential
Single-Family DU 9.57 $ 161 $ 1,542 $ 31 $ 1,573
Multi-Family DU 6.72 161 1,083 22 1,105
Non-Residential
Office 1,000 Building SF 11.01 161 1,774 35 1,810
Commercial 1,000 Building SF 44.32 161 7,142 143 7,285
Industrial 1,000 Building SF 6.97 161 1,123 22 1,146
'Table 8.1.
2 Table 8.3.
3 Cost per trip multiplied by trip rate per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building SF.
4 Administrative charge of 2.00%
5 Fee per DU plus administrative fee per DU or fee per 1,000 building SF plus administrative fee per 1,000 building SF.
38
EMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 9: Storm Drain
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain and related facilities to
accommodate growth within the City of Burlingame. It documents a reasonable relationship
between new development and a storm drain fee to fund storm drain and related facilities that serve
new development.
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)
New development generates additional storm water runoff by increasing the amount of land that is
not penetrable to precipitation. Consequently, new development generates the need for,and benefits
from, expanded storm drain facilities. Table 9.1 presents the impervious surface coefficient by land
use type published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA),
California. These impervious surface coefficients were used to determine the equivalent dwelling
unit factors.
Table 9.1: Storm Drain-Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors
Impervious% DU/Acre Impervious Area EDU
Land Use Type (Per Acre) Or Bldg SF/Acre 2 Per DU OR Per 1,000 Bldg SF 3,4 Factor 5
Residential
Single-Family 40% 5 3,485 1.00
Multi-Family 60% 15 1,742 0.50
Non-Residential
Office 69% 15,246 1,971 0.57
Commercial 80% 10,890 3,200 0.92
Industrial 84% 13,068 2,800 0.80
'Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA),California.
2 Dwelling units per acre for residential land use types or building square feet for non-residential land use
types. Building square feet was derived by multiplying 43,560 square feet by the floor area ratio(FAR)of each
non-residential land use type. FAR classification:0.35 for Office,0.25 for Commercial, 0.30 for Industrial.
3 Derived by multiplying 43,560 square feet by the impervious percentage and then dividing the result by the
number of dwelling units per acre.
4 Impervious area per building square foot was derived by multiplying 43,560 square feet by the impervious
percentage and then dividing the result by the number of building square feet. Impervious area per building
square foot multiplied by 1,000 square feet to determine impervious area per 1,000 building square feet.
5 Derived by dividing impervious area of each land use type by the impervious area of the Single-Family land
use type.
Sources:OEHHA;City of Burlingame; MuniFinancial.
Table 9.2 presents the estimated number of equivalent dwelling units based on the projected number
of dwelling units and building square feet in 2007 and 2011 and the EDU factors shown in Table
9.1.
ZMuniFnancial 39
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 9.2: Storm Drain Facilities—Total Equivalent Dwelling Units
Estimations 1 Estimated EDUs 3
Growth
Growth (2007-
Land Use Type 2007 2011 2008-2011 EDU Factor 2 2007 2011 2011
Residential(DUs)
Single-Family 4,790 4,853 64 1.00 4,790 4,853 64
Multi-Family 8,903 9,021 119 0.50 4,451 4,511 59
Subtotal-Residential 13,692 13,875 183 9,241 9,364 123
Non-Residential(Building
Square Feet in 000s)
Office 1,870 1,960 90 0.57 1,058 1,109 51
Commercial 4,698 4,925 226 0.92 4,314 4,522 208
Industrial 4,723 4,950 227 0.80 31795 3,978 183
Subtotal-Nonresidential 11,291 11,835 544 9,167 9,609 441
Total EDUs 18,408 18,973 565
'Table 2.2. Estimated number of dwelling units and number of building square feet which is in thousands.
2 Table 9.1. EDU factor per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.
3 Multiplied EDU factor of each land use type by the estimated number of dwelling units or building square feet which is in
thousands.
Storm Drain Facility Standard
The master plan method was used to determine storm drain facility standard based on the ratio of all
existing plus planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development). Table 9.3
shows the standard cost per equivalent dwelling unit,which was derived by dividing the total cost of
existing and planned facilities by the projected number of equivalent dwelling units in 2011.
40
ZMuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 93:Storm Drain Facilities—Standard Cost Per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(IDU)
Cost Per
Square FeetSquare Foot Total Cost'
Existing
Storm Drainage Facilities
Pump Station 1,200 $ 1,419 $ 1,702,526
Drainage Stn 90,254
Drainage Bldg 71,109
Control Bldg 59 12,236 715,829
Old Control Bldg 86 103 8,774
Pump Station 563,203
Generator Bldg 104 71 7,340
Pump House 32 20,777 654,485
Generator Bldg 255 87 22,160
Control Bldg 133,635
Pump Station 79 18,631 1,471,811
Storm Sewer Sta. 168 9,736 1,635,673
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles -
Equipment 776,288
Subtotal 7,853,085
Planned
Storm Drainage-Capital Improvement Projects
Storm Drain Utility Program 220,000
Capacity Improvements- Easton Creek 3,000,000
Capacity Improvements-Mills Creek 700,000
Local Improvements 2,620,000
Pump Stations 140,000
Subtotal 6,680,000
Total Existing& Planned Facilities $ 14,533,085
EDUs (201 1) 2 18,973
Cost Per EDU $ 766
' City of Burlingame.
2 Table 9.2.
New Development Contribution
Table 9.4 presents the estimated amount to be contributed by new development based on the cost
standard per equivalent dwelling unit calculated for storm drain facility depicted in Table 9.3 and on
the projected equivalent dwelling units for new development shown in Table 9.2.
E MuniFnancial 41
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 9.4: Storm Drain Facilities—New Development Contribution
Total
Facility Standard Per EDU $ 766
EDUs- Growth (2007-201 1)2 565
Total Generated by New Development $ 432,487
Total Cost of Planned Facilities ' $ 6,680,000
Deficiency To Be Funded by Non-Impact Fee Revenue 1 $ (6,247,513)
' Table 9.3.
2 Table 9.2.
The importance of Table 9.4 is the bottom line that shows the share of planned facility costs that
must come from revenue sources other than development impact fees. This amount represents the
remainder after allocating to new development its share of those costs. The City can raise the
funding needed to complement development impact fee revenues over the planning horizon
(through 2011). This funding is necessary to justify the fee imposed on new development using the
master plan standard documented here. If this funding does not materialize, then new development
would have paid too high a fee.
Alternative Funding Sources
The City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund the non-fee
share of planned facility costs. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general
fund revenues,or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would require two-thirds voter
approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require majority property owner
approval.
Fee Schedule
Table 9.5 shows the storm drain development impact fees based on the cost standard shown in
Table 9.3. The cost per equivalent dwelling unit is converted to a fee per dwelling unit and fee per
1,000 building square feet based on the equivalent dwelling unit factors shown in Table 9.2. The net
impact fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include:
➢ A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
➢ Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
➢ Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
MMuniHnancial 42
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 9.5: Storm Drain Facilities—Impact Fee Schedule
EDU actorCost Net
Land Use Unit ' Per EDU 2 Impact Fee 3 Admin. Fee 4 Impact Fee 5
Residential
Single-Family DU 1.00 $ 766 $ 766 $ 15 $ 781
Multi-Family DU 0.50 766 383 8 391
Non-Residential
Office 1,000 Building SF 0.57 766 433 9 442
Commercial 1,000 Building SF 0.92 766 703 14 717
Industrial 1,000 Building SF 0.80 766 615 12 628
'Table 9.1.
2 Table 9.3.
3 Cost per EDU multiplied by the EDU factor.
4 Administrative charge of 2.00%
5 Fee per DU plus administrative fee per DU or fee per 1,000 building SF plus administrative fee per 1,000 building SF.
ZMuniFnaocial
43
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 10: Water Facilities
This chapter presents an analysis of the need for water facilities to accommodate new development
in the City of Burlingame. A fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure
that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)
For the purposes of this study, we used typical water consumption patterns to calculate the
equivalent dwelling unit factor for various land use types. The average water consumption per
dwelling unit or per person is based on data published by California State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB). The equivalent dwelling unit factors were calculated by dividing the estimated
water consumption of each land use type by the estimated water consumption of the single-family
land use,as shown in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1:Water Facilities—Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors
Flow Per Unit or Per Estimated
Land Use Type Person GDP ' Densityz Water Consumption 3 Unit EDU Factor
Residential
Single-Family 100 2.82 100 Per DU 1.00
Multi-Family 150 1.68 150 Per DU 1.50
Non-Residential
Office 10 2.10 21 1,000 Building SF 0.21
Commercial 50 3.05 153 1,000 Building SF 1.53
Industrial 15 1.00 15 1,000 Building SF 0.15
'California State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB).
2 Table 2.1.Density per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.
3 Estimated water consumption,gallons per day,per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.
° Derived by dividing estimated water consumption of each land use type by the estimated water consumption of the
Single-Family land use type.
Table 10.2 presents the estimated number of equivalent dwelling units based on the projected
number of dwelling units and building square feet in 2007 and 2011 and the EDU factors shown in
Table 10.1.
-1-1
ZMuniFtnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 10.2:Water Facilities—Total Equivalent Dwelling Units
Estimations Estimated EDUs 3
Growth EDU Growth
Land Use Type 2007 2011 2007-2011 Factor Z 2007 2011 2007-2011
Residential(DUs)
Single-Family 4,790 4,853 64 1.00 4,790 4,853 64
Multi-Family 8,903 9,021 119 1.50 13,354 13,532 178
Subtotal-Residential 13,692 13,875 183 18,144 18,386 242
Non-Residential
(Building SF in'000s)
Office 1,870 1,960 90 0.21 393 412 19
Commercial 4,698 4,925 226 1.53 7,165 7,510 345
Industrial 4,723 4,950 227 0.15 708 743 34
Subtotal-Nonresidential 11,291 11,835 544 8,266 8,664 398
Total EDUs 26,410 27,050 640
Table 2.2. Estimated number of dwelling units and number of building square feet which is in thousands.
z Table 10.1. EDU factor per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.
3 Multiplied EDU factor of each land use type by the estimated number of dwelling units or building square feet.
Water Facility Standard
The master plan method was used to determine water facility standard based on the ratio of all
existing plus planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development). Table 10.3
shows the standard cost per equivalent dwelling unit,which was derived by dividing the total cost of
existing and planned facilities by the projected number of equivalent dwelling units in 2011.
NMuniFnanciaf
43
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 10.3: Water Facilities — Standard Cost Per
Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU)
Total Cost'
Existing
Water Facilities
Water Pump $ 15,158
Pump House 7,392
Pump Station 27,724
Trousdale Pump 19,733
Water Pump 12,552
Pump Tank#1 36,289
Skyln Res/Tnk 2 216,942
Pump Station 10,250
Pressure Tank 53,328
Alcazar Water 55,477
Tank#1 38,995
Tank#2 38,995
Tank Reservoir 136,042
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles 364,297
Equipment 282,714
Subtotal 1,315,888
Planned
Water-Capital Improvement Projects
Storage 2,520,000
Transmission Pipelines -
Pump Stations -
SCADA 60,000
Subtotal 2,580,000
Total Existing & Planned Facilities $ 3,895,888
EDUs (201 1) 2 27,050
Cost Per EDU $ 144
' City of Burlingame.
2 Table 10.2.
New Development Contribution
Table 10.4 presents the estimated amount to be contributed by new development based on the cost
standard per equivalent dwelling unit calculated for water facility depicted in Table 10.3 and on the
projected equivalent dwelling units for new development shown in Table 10.2.
46
S MuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 10.4:Water Facilities—New Development Contribution
Total
Facility Standard Per EDU ' $ 144
EDUs-Growth (2007-2011) 2 640
Total Generated by New Development $ 92,160
Total Cost of Planned Facilities ' $ 2,580,000
Deficiency To Be Funded by Non-Impact Fee Revenue; $ (2,487,840)
Table 10.3.
1 Table 10.2.
The importance of Table 10.4 is the bottom line that shows the share of planned facility costs that
must come from revenue sources other than development impact fees. This amount represents the
remainder after allocating to new development its share of those costs. The City can raise the
funding needed to complement development impact fee revenues over the planning horizon
(through 2011). This funding is necessary to justify the fee imposed on new development using the
master plan standard documented here. If this funding does not materialize, then new development
would have paid too high a fee.
Alternative Funding Sources
The City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund the non-fee
share of planned facility costs. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general
fund revenues,or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would require two-thirds voter
approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require majority property owner
approval.
Fee Schedule
Table 10.5 shows the water development impact fees based on the cost standard shown in Table
10.3. The cost per equivalent dwelling unit is converted to a fee per meter size based on the meter
equivalent ratios published by American Water Works Association (AWWA) and on the assumption
that single-family dwelling units have a meter size of '/4 inch. The net impact fee includes an
administrative charge to fund costs that include:
➢ A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
➢ Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
➢ Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
MMunFWmncial 47
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 10.5:Water Facilities—Impact Fee Schedule
Meter Equivalent Cost Per
Meter SizeRatio 2 Meter 3 Admin Fee 4 Total Fee 5
5/8 1.00 144 3 147
3/4 1.50 216 4 220
1 2.50 360 7 367
1 1/2 5.00 720 14 735
2 8.00 1,152 23 1,175
3 16.00 2,304 46 2,351
4 25.00 3,601 72 3,673
6 62.50 9,002 180 9,182
8 80.00 11,522 230 11,753
' 5/8"meter size represents a single-family dwelling unit.
2 American .
3 Fee per meter size based on meter equivalent ratio (relative to a single-family dwelling
unit).
4 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent.
5 Total fee per meter size.
-t8
RMuniFnancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 11: Sewer Facilities
This chapter presents an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate new development
in the City of Burlingame. A fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure
that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)
For the purposes of this study, sewer discharged is assumed to be approximately seventy-five
percent (75%) of the water consumed. The average water consumption per dwelling unit or per
person is based on State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The equivalent dwelling unit
factors were calculated by dividing the estimated sewer discharged of each land use type by the
estimated sewer discharged of the single-family land use,as shown in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1: Sewer Facilities—Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors
Water Flow Sewer
Per Unit or Discharged
Per Person Per Unit or Per Estimated EDU
Land Use Type GDP 1 Person(GDP)2 Density3 Sewer Discharged 4 Unit Factor 5
Residential
Single-Family 100 75 2.82 75 Per DU 1.00
Multi-Family 150 113 1.68 113 Per DU 1.50
Non-Residential
(Building SF in'000s)
Office 10 8 2.10 16 Per 1,000 Building SF 0.21
Commercial 50 38 3.05 114 Per 1,000 Building SF 1.53
Industrial 15 11 1.00 11 Per 1,000 Building SF 0.15
State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB).
2 Assumed to be seventy-five percent(75%)of the water consumed.
3 Table 2.1. Density per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.
4 Estimated sewer discharged,gallons per day,per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.
5 Derived by dividing estimated sewer discharged of each land use type by the estimated sewer discharged of the single-
family land use.
Table 11.2 presents the estimated number of equivalent dwelling units based on the projected
number of dwelling units and building square feet in 2007 and 2011 and the EDU factors shown in
Table 11.1.
ZMuniRnancial
-F9
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 11.2: Sewer Facilities—Total Equivalent Dwelling Units
Estimations 1 Estimated EDUs 3
Growth EDU Growth
Land Use Type 2007 2011 2007-2011 Factor 2 2007 2011 (2007-2011)
Residential(DUs)
Single-Family 4,790 4,853 64 1.00 4,790 4,853 64
Multi-Family 8,903 9,021 119 1.50 13,354 13,532 178
Subtotal-Residential 13,692 13,875 183 18,144 18,386 242
Non-Residential
(Building SF in'000s)
Office 1,870 1,960 90 0.21 393 412 19
Commercial 4,698 4,925 226 1.53 7,165 7,510 345
Industrial 4,723 4,950 227 0.15 708 743 34
Subtotal-Nonresidential 11,291 11,835 544 8,266 8,664 398
Total EDUs 26,410 27,050 640
Table 2.2. Estimated number of dwelling units and number of building square feet which is in thousands.
2 Table 11.1. EDU factor per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.
'Multiplied EDU factor of each land use type by the estimated number of dwelling units or building square feet.
Sewer Facility Standard
The master plan method was used to determine sewer facility standard based on the ratio of all
existing plus planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new development). Table 11.3
shows the standard cost per equivalent dwelling unit,which was derived by dividing the total cost of
existing and planned facilities by the projected number of equivalent dwelling units in 2011.
50
SMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
Table 113:Sewer Facilities-Standard Cost Per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU)
Square Feet Cost Per
Square Foot Total Cost
Existing
Sewer Facilities
Effluent Pump Bid 224 $ 145 $ 32,425
Switchgear Bldg 561 93 51,966
Secondary Thick 3,079 104 320,643
Power Building 1,728 145 250,178
Chemical Feed 506 109 55,255
Headworks 1,856 90 167,715
Between Tanks Bid 1,024 115 117,878
Dewatering Bldg 4,278 92 393,417
Sewer Treatment 5,560 142 789,738
Sewer Pump Stn 456 312 142,212
Sewer Building 855 95 81,147
Sewer Pump Stn 180 1,420 255,619
Pump Station 900 315 283,754
Pump Stn/Sewer 34,711
Sewer Pump Stn 19,605
Sewer Pump Stn 40,957
Sewer Pump Stn 15,221
Generator Bldg 104 7,340
Pump House 32 654,485
Generator Bldg 255 22,160
Pump Station 79 1,471,811
Pump Station 563,203
Control Bldg 133,635
Vehicles& Equipment
Vehicles 1,151,580
Equipment 822,160
Subtotal 7,878,813
Planned
Sewer-Capital Improvement Projects
Sewer Studies 400,000
Treatment 3,420,000
Subtotal 3,820,000
Total Existing& Planned Facilities $ 11,698,813
EDUs(201 1)2 27,050
Cost Per EDU $ 432
City of Burlingame.
2 Table 11.2.
SMuniFinancial 51
For Discussion Purposes Only
New Development Contribution
Table 11.4 presents the estimated amount to be contributed by new development based on the cost
standard per equivalent dwelling unit calculated for sewer facility depicted in Table 11.3 and on the
projected equivalent dwelling units for new development shown in Table 11.2.
Table 11.4:Sewer Facilities—New Development Contribution
Total
Facility Standard Per EDU $ 432
EDUs-Growth (2007-201 1)2 640
Total Generated by New Development $ 276,744
Total Cost of Planned Facilities ' $ 3,820,000
Deficiency To Be Funded by Non-Impact Fee Revenue: $ (3,543,256)
' Table 11.3.
1 Table 11.2.
The importance of Table 11.4 is the bottom line that shows the share of planned facility costs that
must come from revenue sources other than development impact fees. This amount represents the
remainder after allocating to new development its share of those costs. The City can raise the
funding needed to complement development impact fee revenues over the planning horizon
(through 2011). This funding is necessary to justify the fee imposed on new development using the
master plan standard documented here. If this funding does not materialize, then new development
would have paid too high a fee.
Alternative Funding Sources
The City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund the non-fee
share of planned facility costs. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general
fund revenues,or existing or new taxes or assessments. Any new tax would require two-thirds voter
approval. Any new assessments or property-related charge would require majority property owner
approval.
Fee Schedule
Table 11.5 shows the sewer development impact fees based on the cost standard shown in Table
11.3. The cost per equivalent dwelling unit is converted to a fee per meter size based on the meter
equivalent ratios published by American Water Works Association (AWWA) and on the assumption
that single-family dwelling units have a meter size of 3/4 inch. The net impact fee includes an
administrative charge to fund costs that include:
➢ A standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other
departmental and citywide administrative support;
52
MMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
➢ Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of
projects funded by the public facilities fee;and
➢ Public facilities fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and
cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
Table 11.5: Sewer Facilities—Impact Fee Schedule
Meter Equivalent Cost Per
Meter SizeRatio 2 Meter 3 Admin Fee 4 Total Fee 5
5/8 1.00 432 9 441
3/4 1.50 649 13 662
1 2.50 1,081 22 1,103
1 1/2 5.00 2,162 43 2,206
2 8.00 3,460 69 3,529
3 16.00 6,920 138 7,058
4 25.00 10,812 216 11,029
6 62.50 27,031 541 27,571
8 80.00 34,599 692 35,291
' 5/8" meter size represents a single-family dwelling unit.
2 American Water Works Association (AWWA).
3 Fee per meter size based on meter equivalent ratio (relative to a single-family
dwelling unit).
4 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent.
s Total fee per meter size.
M MuniFnancial 53
For Discussion Purposes Only
Chapter 12: Implementation
This section identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fee programs.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City should update its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to program fee revenues to specific
projects. Use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new
development and the use of fee revenues.
The City may alter the scope of the planned station and equipment shown in this study, or substitute
new projects, as long as the project continues to represent an expansion of the Department's
capabilities. If the total cost of all planned projects varies from the total cost used as a basis for the
fee,the City should revise the fee accordingly.
For the five-year planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all existing fund balances and
projected fee revenue to the appropriate facilities projects. The City can hold funds in a project
account for longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient funds to complete a project.
Identify Non-fee Revenue Sources
The City must identify non-development impact fee revenue sources to fully fund the planned
facilities and justify the maximum public facilities fee. The City should take any actions necessary to
secure those funds.
Inflation Adjustment
The City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and adopt an automatic
inflation adjustment to the fee annually. The City should use separate indexes for land and
construction costs. Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser every
several years. The construction cost index can be based on the City's recent capital project
experience or taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record. To calculate the
fee increases, each index should be weighted by the share of total planned facility costs represented
by land or construction,as appropriate.
Reporting Requirements
The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code
66000 et seq. For facilities to be funded with a combination of development impact fees and other
revenues, the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also
identify when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project.
54
MMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Onlv
Chapter 13: Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and
imposed on development projects by local agencies (cities and counties) responsible for regulating
land use. To guide the widespread imposition of development impact fees, the State Legislature
adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent
amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code §66000 through §66025, establishes
requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act
requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified development impact fees
documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that
follows. All statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
For the first finding the City must:
Identify the purpose of the fee. §66001(a)(1)
The policy of the City of Burlingame is that new development will not burden existing development
with the cost of public facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the development
impact fees documented by this report is to implement this policy by providing a funding source
from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a
legitimate interest of the City by enabling the City to provide municipal services to new
development.
Use of Fee Revenues
For the second finding the City must:
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public
facilities for which the fee is charged. §66001(a)(2)
The development impact fees documented by this report will fund expanded facilities to serve new
development. All facilities funded by these fees will serve residents and workers of the City of
Burlingame. Each development impact fee will be restricted to funding only one of the following
types of public facilities:
➢ Police facilities;
➢ Fire/Rescue facilities;
➢ Library facilities;
Parks&Recreation facilities;
MmuniFnancial 55
For Discussion Purposes Only
General Public facilities;
➢ Transportation facilities;
➢ Storm Drain facilities;
➢ Water facilities;and
➢ Sewer facilities.
Detailed descriptions of certain planned facilities, including their specific location if known at this
time, are included in master plans, capital improvement plans, or other City planning documents or
are available from City staff. The City may change the list of planned facilities to meet changing
circumstances and needs, as it deems necessary. The fee program should be updated if these
changes result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new development.
Benefit Relationship
For the third finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. §66001(a)(3)
The City will restrict fee revenues to the acquisition of land, construction of public buildings, and
purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services that serve new development.
Public facilities funded by each fee will provide a citywide network of services accessible to the
additional residents and workers associated with new development. Fees will not fund planned
facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the
use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that will pay the
fee.
Burden Relationship
For the fourth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the
type of development project on which the fee is imposed. §66001(a)(4)
The need for each type of facility is based on a facility standard that represents the demand
generated by new development for that facility. Service population and trips determine demand for
facilities. For each facility type demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied
across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. Service
population standards are calculated based on residents associated with residential development and
employment associated with nonresidential development. To calculate a single per capita standard,
one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative demand between
residential and nonresidential development.
The same facility standards used to determine growth needs are also used to determine if planned
facilities will partially serve existing development by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach
ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities,and that
56
MMuniFinancial
For Discussion Purposes Only
each public facilities fee will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities
associated with serving existing development.
Proportionality
For the fifth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the
fee is imposed. §66001(b)
This reasonable relationship between each development impact fee for a specific development
project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated amount of
the service population or trips that the project will accommodate. The total fee for a specific project
is based on its size as measured by building square feet. The fee schedule converts the estimated
service population, trips, or EDU that a development project will accommodate into a fee based on
the size of the project. Larger projects of a certain land use type will have a higher service
population and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use type. Thus, the fee
schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the public facilities fee for a specific
development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
MMuniFinancial 57
40 •
City BurlingameofExpettise
Council Workshop
Edtic." ItIOII
User Fee Study
Impact Fee Study
Revenue
Marshall Eyerman, Principal Consultant ElPh.anceinent
-
Katie Wilson, Principal Consultant
Bill Moses, Sr. Project Manager
e
March 3, 2008
MuniFinancial
• Member of Willdan Group Inc .
• Services
- Financial & Economic Consulting
- Special District Formations
- Utility Rates and Fees
- Development Impacts & Financing
- District Formation & Administration
- Arbitrage Rebate & Continuing Disclosure
• Size and locations :
- Over 70 employees
- Over 600 client agencies in 38 states
- Headquarters in Temecula with Offices in CA, AZ , WA ,
TN & FL
& 2
MuniFinancial
MuniFinancial
• Muni Team :
- Marshall Eyerman , Principal Consultant
- Katie Wilson, Principal Consultant
- Bill Moses, Sr. Project Manager
ZMuniFinancial
3
Project Approach
Phase 1 : User Fee Study
Phase 11 : Development Impact Fee Study
MMuniFinancial
k
cn
Q
M
�U
f0
C
LL
C
User Fee Study
• According to California law , a City can impose
fees for government services when :
- Individual use of the service is voluntary
- The fee charged is reasonably related to the level of
service and the cost of providing the service
• A User Fee Study helps to ensure that the City's
fees :
- Meet the statutory test
- Recover up to 100% of its costs in providing services
- Identifies where the General Fund is subsidizing current
fees
NMuniFinancial
s
I 1 I I ( I ! I I f I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I
User Fee Data Collection
• User Fee Studies use cost layers that , when
combined , constitute the fully burdened cost of a
service ; these cost layers are defined as :
- Direct Labor = staff hours spent directly on fee-related
services
- Departmental Indirect Labor - hours spent on staff
supervision and administrative activities
- Central Services Overhead - costs of Central Services
Departments that support the Operating Departments
MuniFinancial 7
Time and Materials Method
• Fees are based on actual costs ; variations of this
method include charging fees based on
- A Deposit System - used when City staff time
requirements vary dramatically for a service, or for
special projects where the time and cost requirements
are not easy to identify at the project's outset
- An Hourly Rate - fees set on an hourly rate without a
deposit requirement
- A Rate per Square Foot - often used by jurisdictions to
convert from valuation
MuniFinancial 8
1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I
Time and Materials Method (continued )
• Advantages and disadvantages of the time and
materials method :
- Advantages :
- Defensible
- Supported by the development industry
- Equitable
- 100% cost recoverable
- Easy to update
- Disadvantages :
- Time involvement
- Misleading averages
- Can be too complex
OMuniFinancial
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
A Zle
MGM
Sample User Fee Study
• According to California law , a City can impose
fees for government services when :
- Individual use of the service is voluntary
- The fee charged is reasonably related to the level of
service and the cost of providing the service
it • A User Fee Study helps to ensure that the City's
fees :
- Meet the statutory test
- Recover up to 100% of its costs in providing services
- Identifies where the General Fund is subsidizing current
fees
B MuniFinancial
10
Components of a User Fee Study
• A review of the department budgets
• Identification of appropriate overhead cost
allocations
• A clear description of the services provided by
each City department
• A comprehensive listing of each department's
staffing levels and associated fully burdened
hourly pay rates
• A Time/Materials Survey of each service for
which a fee is contemplated
• User Fee Schedule
MuniFinancial 1
i r i r r r r r r i r r r r r r i i r
User Fee Analysis Methodology
• Case Study Method = estimates actual labor and
material costs associated with providing a unit of
service to a single user
- Costs are based on :
- Interviews with staff
- A records review
- A "time and materials" analysis based on actual
costs including staff time (at fully burdened rates)
and material costs ( including outside contractor
costs)
SMuniFinancial 12
User Fee Data Collection
• User Fee Studies use four cost layers that , when
combined , constitute the fully burdened cost of a
service ; these cost layers are defined as :
- Direct Labor - staff hours spent directly on fee-related
services
- Departmental Indirect Labor - hours spent on staff
supervision and administrative activities
- Central Services Overhead - costs of Central Services
Departments that support the Operating Departments
MMuniFinancial
13
Services OH
�epartmefrta,l
E
Overhead � �
Personnel Costs
( Salary & Benefits)
Time/Materials Surveys
• A Time/Materials Survey determines the amount
of time each employee spends on a service
- Employees may spend anywhere from a few minutes to
several hours on a service
t
• A Time/Materials Survey provides department
management with an opportunity to assess the
time requirements for each service
- Recorded onto a spreadsheet
.v
&Munihnancial 15
Review Fee Methodologies
• Meet with City staff to determine :
- Goals and objectives
- City organizational structure
- Policies and procedures for public service
delivery
- Implementation strategy
• We will identify current fee methodologies used
and compare those to " best practices" fee
schedules from other jurisdictions
BMuniFinancial 16
Develop and Apply Adjustment Factor
• Develop a cost adjustment factor suitable for use
in updating the City's user fees
- Typically , based on :
- The local Consumer Price Index
- The Employee Cost Index for State and Local Government
Employees, Total Compensation
- Muni provides an updatable copy of the User Fee model
- Or, a mixture of the adjustment factors listed above
& 17
MuniFinancial
Phase II :
Impact Fee Study
MuniFinancial 18
Impact Fee Overview
• What are development impact fees ?
- A type of exaction imposed on new development to fund the
facilities required to accommodate growth
- Adoption :
- Requires City Council approval only
- Does not require property owner or voter approval
t '
- Statutory findings based on nexus study
- Use of funds
- only capital costs
- Not maintenance or operations
jMuniFinancial 19
I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I i I I I I I
Study Objectives
• Determine most effective use of impact fees
within overall capital improvement program
• Determine the maximum justifiable contribution
from new development (fee schedule)
• Develop a defensible nexus justification based
on " reasonable relationship " and " deferential
review " legal standards
• Document all findings and conclusions in
compliance with Mitigation Fee Act
ZMuniFinancial 20
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
(Govt . Code § 66001 )
• Purpose of fee
• Use of fee revenue
• Benefit : Development . Use of revenue
• Need : Development . Need for facilities
• Proportionality : Fee amount . development ' s
share of facility costs
ZMuniFinancial
21
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Public Facilities to be Included in this Study
• Police
• Fire
• Library
• Parks & Recreation
• General Public Facilities
• Transportation
• Storm Drain
• Water
• Sewer
MMuniFinancial 22
Rod
study objectives
Existing development Futurerowth
& facilities g
Facility Planned Facilities & Financing &
Standards Costs Cash Flow
Cost Allocation &
Fee schedule
Implementation Final Public
Strategy Report Hearing
& Ado tion
MuniFinancial 23
Development Projections
Growth
2007 2011 (2007 - 2011 )
Residential
Residents '
Single-Family 139529 13,710 180
Multi-Family 14,930 15, 129 199
28,459 289839 379
Estimated Dwelling Units 3
Single-Family 4, 790 4,853 64
Multi-Family 81903 9,021 119
13,692 13, 875 183
Non-Residential
Workers '
Office 3,927 49116 189
Commercial 14,330 15, 020 690
Industrial 47723 4,950 227
22,980 24, 086 11107
Estimated Building Square Feet (OOOs) 4
Office 1 , 870 1 ,960 90
Commercial 4,698 4, 925 226
Industrial 4, 723 4, 950 227
11 ,291 11 ,835 544
Total Population 5 515439 525925 19486 24
MuniFinancial
Cost Allocation Strategy
EXISTING INVENTORY PLANNED FACILITIES
Existing Facilities Planned Facilities
Existing Service Pop. New Service Pop.
SYSTEM PLAN
MMuniFin
Existing + Planned Facilities
Existing + New Service Pop.
. .
I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I ! I I I I
Maintaining Standards vs . Raising Standards
"System Plan " Approach
(50% Increase Service Level)
150-
140-
130-
51413 New
" Existing Inventory" Approach
12 Facilities
100 11 (Growth
10 Share)
90
so Future S New 9 Future $
Demand Facilities 80
New
70 Demand
60 70 - •
60 -
50 5 $
40 ,P
4
30 Existing Existing Existing
3
20 Demand Facilities
2
10 1
0 0
Demand Facility Needs Demand Facility Needs
ZMuniFinancial
26
" Planned Facilities " Approacho
M
When Needs Are Solely Due to Growth
" Planned Facilities" Approach
1 5C Planned facilities not
14 needed BUT FOR new
13 development
12 - Use engineering models
11 to demonstrate need for
10 New facilities to serve growth
90 Facilities - Usually applicable for
80 traffic & utility fees
70 - Problem of forcing " last
60 one in " to pay high
50 Future marginal costs
40 Deman( - May also have
30 deficiencies that must be
funded by alternative
20 revenues
10 -
0 -
Demand
00Demand Facility Needs
�MuniFinancial
27
Proposed Fee Schedule
General Traffic/ Storm
Land Use Government Library Police Parks Streets ' Fire Drains Total
Residential (Fee per Dwelling Unit)
Single Family $ 2,756 $ 2,383 $ 437 $ 590 $ 1 ,573 $ 642 $ 781 $ 99162
Multi-family $ 1 ,636 $ 1 ,415 $ 259 $ 350 $ 1 , 105 $ 381 $ 391 57537
Nonresidential (Fee per 1,000 Building Square Feet, Except Storm Fees which are per Acre and Transportation which is per trip)
Commercial $ 640 $ 478 $ 102 $ 118 $ 1 ,810 $ 248 $ 442 $ 39838
Office $ 930 $ 695 $ 147 $ 172 $ 7,285 $ 360 $ 717 10,306
Industrial $ 305 $ 228 $ 48 $ 56 $ 1 , 146 $ 118 $ 628 29529
1 Amount represents the estimated fee based on trip allocation. The actual fee will be determined based on actual trips.
MuniFinancial
8
Proposed Fee Schedule (cont . )
Meter Size Water Sewer
5/8 $ 147 $ 441
3/4 $ 220 $ 662
1 $ 367 $ 13103
1 1 /2 $ 735 $ 21206
2 $ 1 , 175 $ 3 ,529
3 $ 21351 $ 79058
4 $ 31673 $ 115029
6 $ 99182 $ 27 ,571
8 $ 11753 $ 35 ,291
MuniFinancial
9
Estimated Impact Fees (2007-2011 )
Growth Impact Fee Per
(2007 - 2011 ) Unit (Excl Util.) Total Fees
Residential (Dwelling Units)
Single-Family 64 9,162 584,915
Multi-Family 119 5,537 657,038
Total Dwelling Units 183 1 ,241 ,953
Non-Residential (Building SF in 000s)
Office 90 3,838 345,575
Commercial 226 10,306 2,331 ,693
Industrial 227 2,529 575,107
Total Building Square Feet 544 3,252,374
ZMuniFinancial 30
Implementation Issues
• Economic development concerns
Adopt less than the maximum justified fee
Phase in fees
- Use of other revenue sources to to subsidize fees (tax
increments , grants , etc .)
• Automatic inflation adjustment
• Program fee revenues through a CIP
MuniFinancial 31
Questsions ,
D 0 0
iscussion
a
&
��MuniFinancial 32
GITT O�
BURUNGAME
w•m urc s.
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of February 19, 2008
STUDY SESSION
a. BALLOT MEASURE TO FUND DEFERRED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Discussion included various approaches to funding Capital Improvement needs. Council directed staff to
issue a Request for Proposal for design of a Storm Drainage Fee Program.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Mayor Rosalie M. O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Lorne Abramson.
CLOSED SESSION
CM Nantell advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following:
a. Pending Litigation: Fie vs. City of Burlingame (Govt. Code §54956.8(a))
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Deal, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. MINUTES
One correction was made to the minutes of the February 4, 2008 regular Council meeting: Item 8.a., third
paragraph to show the motion was seconded by Mayor O'Mahony.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the February 4, 2008 regular
Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1
(Keighran abstained).
1
Burlingame City Council February 19,2008
Unapproved Minutes
5. PRESENTATIONS
a. PRESENTATION OF BURLINGAME-CERTIFIED GREEN BUSINESSES
Code Enforcement Officer Sue Harris introduced the following Burlingame-certified green businesses: ELM
Advisors, LLC represented by Lorne Abramson; TRG Architects represented by Randy Grange and Leslie
La Marre; and Frosch International Travel represented by Denise Palermo. Mayor O'Mahony presented each
business with a Bay Area Green Business Program Certificate.
b. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
DPW Murtuza presented details of the Pavement Management Program and stressed the cost benefits of
maintaining our streets at the pavement condition rating of Good. Currently 46% of the City's streets are
rated Excellent. Funding for street resurfacing currently comes from Gas Tax and Measure A monies, plus
one-time funding from Proposition 1B for the 2007-08 street resurfacing program.
Mayor O'Mahony stated that Governor Schwarzenegger's administration will be taking half of cities' Gas
Tax monies from April through September to fund the state's budget.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1817 TO AMEND THE CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CaIPERS)AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO
PROVIDE SECTION 21354.4 (2.5% AT AGE 55 RETIREMENT FORMULA) BENEFITS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES
HRD Dolan reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1817 amending contract between the City of Burlingame and the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (Ca1PERS) to provide Government Code Section 21354.4 (2.5% @55 full
formula)benefits to miscellaneous members.
Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Councilman Deal made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1817 amending contract between the
City of Burlingame and the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) to provide
Government Code Section 21354.4 (2.5% @55 full formula) benefits to miscellaneous members; seconded
by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony
directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1818 AMENDING
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.04.240 TO EXEMPT EXHIBITORS SOLELY SELLING
FOODSTUFFS, LIVE PLANTS,ARTWORK, OR HANDCRAFTS AT AN EVENT OR
MARKET IN THE CITY OPERATED BY ANY RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE,
FRATERNAL, MILITARY, STATE, COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION OR
ASSOCIATION
2
Burlingame City Council February 19,2008
Unapproved Minutes
FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1818 amending Section 6.04.240 to exempt certain vendors at events and markets conducted
by exempt organizations from business license taxes.
Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1818 amending Section
6.04.240 to exempt certain vendors at events and markets conducted by exempt organizations from business
license taxes; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor O'Mahony directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Avenue, spoke on Item 8.e. Richard Terrones of the Planning Commission
spoke on commission candidates. JoAnne Nagler, 1500 Floribunda Avenue, spoke on noise abatement. Scott
Gardner and Ian Overton of Oakland spoke on the Homeowner and Bank Protection Act. Charles Voltz, 725
Vernon Way, spoke on Item 8.e. There were no further comments from the floor.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. APPROVAL OF A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH MUNICIPAL AUDITING
SERVICES (MAS) TO CONDUCT A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX AUDIT AND
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM; APPROVAL OF A 90-DAY BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
AMNESTY PERIOD COMMENCING MARCH 1, 2008; AND ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION NO. 18-2008 DESIGNATING MUNICIPAL AUDITING SERVICES AS AN
AUTHORIZED CITY REPRSENTATIVE
FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council to approve a three-year agreement with
Municipal Auditing Services (MAS)to conduct a Business License Tax audit and enforcement program; to
approve a 90-day tax amnesty period from March 1 to May 31, 2008; and to adopt the resolution designating
MAS as an authorized representative of the City of Burlingame to examine Sales and Use records.
Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve the agreement and the amnesty period, and to adopt
Resolution No. 18-2008 designating Municipal Auditing Services as an authorized City representative to
examine Sales and Use records; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. Council discussion followed.
During Council discussion, Councilwoman Baylock commented that the method of enforcement after the 90-
day amnesty period is severe and that the business environment has changed since this tax was implemented
with more people working out of their homes because of today's electronic business environment.
The motion was approved by roll call vote, 4-1 (Baylock dissented).
b. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS (2) TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Council discussed the various attributes of all commission candidates. As CC Mortensen called each
candidate's name in random order, each Councilmember voted for two applicants to fill the two vacancies.
Jeff Lindstrom and Sandra Yie received the unanimous votes of the Council. Mayor O'Mahony then
randomly drew Jeff Lindstrom's name appointing him to the 4-year seat to fill Commissioner Osterling's
3
Burlingame City Council February 19,2008
Unapproved Minutes
impending vacancy. Sandra Yie was appointed to the remaining 3-year seat filling the vacancy left by
Councilman Deal.
C. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE PREFERRED PARKING PERMIT
PROGRAM
Police Sergeant Williams reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance to establish
a Pilot Residential Parking Permit Program. Staff will start this program on a 6-month trial basis in a limited
area.
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance adopting a new Section
13.36.070 to authorize the establishment of preferential parking zones pursuant to Vehicle Code Section
22507. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded
by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman
Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC
Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 14-2008 APPROVING GRAND BOULEVARD GOALS
CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt a resolution endorsing the guiding
principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and directing staff to consider them for applying to future plans
of the City involving El Camino Real.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 14-2008 endorsing the guiding principals of
the Grand Boulevard initiative and directing staff to consider and apply these principles in future plans of the
City of Burlingame that involve El Camino Real; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was
approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
e. DIRECT STAFF REGARDING SIGNAGE AND A COMMEMORATIVE PROJECT FOR
BURLINGAME'S CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY
P&R Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council to provide staff direction for a
commemorative project and for Centennial signage at City entrances.
City Council commented: need community support for commemorative project; a street clock at Burlingame
Train Station would be functional; fund Burlingame Historical Museum; concentrate on Centennial Ball
sales and contribute proceeds to commemorative project; an Arts Commission would acquire public input in
selection of a commemorative project; and for signage, to relocate Centennial Banners to City entrances on
El Camino Real after the Centennial.
Mayor O'Mahony concluded that there is no zest for spending funds on a commemorative project at this
time; that the Centennial's net profits must be determined before consideration of funding a project; and
directed staff to relocate Centennial Banners to City entrances on El Camino Real after their current use.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
4
Burlingame City Council February 19,2008
Unapproved Minutes
a. APPROVE OUT OF STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR TO NORWALK,
CONNECTICUT
FinDir Nava requested Council approve out of state travel for the Finance Director to Norwalk, Connecticut
to attend the Winter Meeting of the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council, March 5-7.
b. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-2008 APPROVING USE OF PROPOSITION 1B FUNDS FOR
THE 2008-09 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM
DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 15-2008 approving projects for Proposition 1B
(Legislative Bond Act) for 2008-09.
C. ADOPT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CENTENNIAL FIREWORKS CONTRACT WITH
FIREWORKS AMERICA
P&R Schwartz requested Council approve a contract with Fireworks & Stage America for the Burlingame
Centennial Fireworks.
d. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 16-2008 REVISING PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO
CITY COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
CA Anderson requested Council approve Resolution No. 16-2008 establishing revised procedure for
appointments to City Commissions and Boards.
e. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 17-2008 REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 32-84 REGARDING
COUNCIL OF MAYORS
CA Anderson requested Council approve Resolution No. 17-2008 repealing Resolution No. 32-84 (1984)
regarding Mayor's obligations at Council of Mayors meetings.
f. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-2008 AMENDING POLICY ON ROTATION OF COUNCIL
OFFICERS
CA Anderson requested Council approve Resolution No. 19-2008 amending City Council policy on rotation
of Council officers.
g. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 20-2008 AMENDING THE SPECIFICATION OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF ATTENDANCE BY CITY
COUNCIL IS AUTHORIZED
CA Anderson requested Council approve Resolution No. 20-2008 amending the specification of official
functions for which reimbursement of costs of attendance is authorized.
h. WARRANTS & PAYROLL
FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #30332-30676 duly audited, in the amount of
$1,953,761.58 (excluding Library checks#30293-30331); Payroll checks #170634-170878 in the amount of
$2,686,807.27 for the month of January 2008.
5
Burlingame City Council February 19,2008
Unapproved Minutes
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman
Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the floor.
12. OLD BUSINESS
a. CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE SHARED SERVICES STUDY, PHASE 1
FC Dornell reviewed the Memo to Council advising that Phase 1 of the study confirmed that there are
potential savings for neighboring fire agencies to close a station in Millbrae and a station in Burlingame and
build a new fire station in between and continue to meet the response time standard. Phase 2 of the study will
include recommendations for additional savings and how to share any realized savings.
Council directed staff to proceed with Phase 2 of the study.
13. NEW BUSINESS
Councilwoman Baylock announced that Chief Van Etten will be honored with a Leadership Action Award
on February 20.
Councilwoman Nagel requested an update of the Reforestation Plan for Easton and asked that the Safeway
and Downtown Specific Plan meeting dates be posted for easy access on the website. P&R Schwartz stated
that he would provide an update on the Reforestation Plan at the next meeting.
Mayor O'Mahony reminded the public that the City's rebate program was expanded by$11,000 to provide
rebates to citizens for newly installed high efficiency washing machines and ultra low flush or high
efficiency toilets. DPW Murtuza stated that in the last six months approximately 120 high efficiency toilets
and 120 high efficiency washing machines were installed in Burlingame saving over a million gallons of
water per year.
Councilman Deal stated that the City Hall statue of Abraham Lincoln needs repainting.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Beautification, February 7, 2008; Library, September 11, October 16, and
November 13, 2007; Planning, February 11, 2008
b. Department Reports: Building, January 2008; Finance, January 2008
c. Two letters from Comcast concerning programming adjustments
6
Burlingame City Council February 19,2008
Unapproved Minutes
15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. in memory of Congressman Tom Lantos and local
resident Michael Emmett Smith.
Respectfully submitted,
Doris J. Mortensen
City Clerk
7
Burlingame City Council February 19,2008
Unapproved Minutes
F
II
j f
t3URLItic�AME
P R O CLAMATI ON
Celebrating March as American Red Cross Month
`Whereas, T eAmerican <lZedCross(13ayArea was founded in 1898; and
I `Whereas, The 1pd Cross, a leading voluntary agency, chartered and authorized
by Congress to act iIi times of need, providing compassionate
assistance to people afflicted 6y personal local or national dusasters;
and
` fwreas, die American RedCross Bay Area helped 900 families with temporary
Housing, clothing,food and mental health counsefing during 500 local
disasters last year atone, and 1pd Cross volunteers have responded to
appro.Vmately 500 localemergencies this year, and
'Whereas, The American Qi�fd Cross (Bay Area trained over 140,000 people in
lifesaving CSR, FirstAicf, andwatersafety last year; and
` , ereas, W Cross staff depfoy with the `U.S. military to provide emergency
communications, counseling,financial assistance and a caring presence
to 2,200 local miCtary families, and Wed Cross BfoodSenices support
31 Bay Area hospitals, providing them with more than 134,000 units
bf redcells,platefets andpfasma to patients in need;
Now, therefore I, 1psahe W. O'Yahmiy, Mayor of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
proclaim March 2008 as American Ind Cross lionth and encourage
aff residents to 6e cognizant of the compassion, courage, character, 'I
andcivic duty that is inherent in the 4dCross mission to prevent and
relieve human suffering.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set
my hand and caused the seafof the City
of Burfingame to 6e aff red this, the 3'd
day of March 2008.
I
1psafle W. O'Mahony, a r
AM CITY o� STAFF REPORT
BURI.MGAME AGENDA
ITEM# 6a
MTG.
DATE 3/3/2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY Jack Van E en,Chief of Police
DATE: February 25,2008
APPROVED
FROM: Sgt. Dean Williams, Director of Traffic BY Jim N ager
SUBJECT: Public hearing to approve a new Ordinance establishing a Residential Parking Permit Program
(section 13.36.070); Adoption of a Resolution establishing policies and procedures for the program; Adoption
of a 2nd Resolution setting the fee structure for the program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and take action to approve a new ordinance
(section 13.36.070)establishing a Residential Parking Permit Program. Council should also adopt a Resolution
establishing the policies and procedures for the program, as well as a 2nd Resolution setting the fee structure of
the program.
The proposal to council would allow the issuance of daytime parking permits for residents living in areas near
business districts with time restricted parking. As part of the proposal, staff is recommending a 6 month
"pilot" or trial period on a limited basis in the 200-400 blocks of Occidental Ave. and the 1200-1400 blocks of
Bellevue Ave. During the trial period staff will monitor the program and report back to council the results of
the program, its effectiveness and any recommendations or changes.
DISCUSSION:
In the past, daytime restricted residential parking areas near business districts have caused residents to move
their vehicles within the posted time restrictions. As a result of receiving requests and/or complaints from the
public on this issue, staff discussed the need to allow residents the opportunity to park near their residence(s)
during daytime hours without time restrictions. Staff agreed that it is unfair to limit a person's right to park
near his/her residence simply because they reside in or near a business district. Currently, residents in these
areas (and their guests)are required to move their vehicles within the posted time limitation or risk receiving a
parking citation. The police department and other city staff have, without success, attempted to change/alter
the time restrictions in some areas to resolve this problem and accommodate residents. Staff believes this
Residential Parking Permit Program will meet the interests of the affected residents living in these areas.
Specifically, this pilot program would allow residents to park their vehicles near their residence during
daytime hours without fear of receiving a citation for violating a time restriction.
Staff held numerous meetings regarding the development of this program. Included in these meetings was a
public meeting held at the Burlingame Recreation Center on January 23 of this year(see attachment"1" for
public comments/questions,permit information and forms). This program was also introduced and discussed
at a Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission meeting. It should be noted that the TSP Commissioners
supported the idea of a Residential Parking Permit Program and there were no notable objections from the
public.
Staff recommends beginning this program on a 6 month "pilot" or trial basis in limited areas; specifically in
the 200-400 blocks of Occidental Ave. and in the 1200-1400 blocks of Bellevue Ave. (refer to attached
Exhibit "A"). Staff feels that these two areas (incorporating neighborhoods that are in a residential area and an
apartment area) provide different and diverse location areas for a true analysis of the effectiveness of the
program. One longtime concerned resident with restricted parking times actually resides in one of these pilot
areas.
Staff has developed a Residential Parking Permit Program (see attachment "2" Policy and Procedures packet).
Staff believes the proposed Residential Parking Permit Program is fair and in line with the parking and traffic
goals of our city. The following is a summary of the program:
The program is entirely "voluntary" and we are recommending a 6 month pilot program on a limited
basis. As previously mentioned, the initial pilot program will include the 200-400 block of Occidental
Ave. and the 1200-1400 block of Bellevue Ave. Prior to the implementation of this pilot program,
Public Works will conduct parking survey(s) in the affected areas. A secondary survey will be
conducted near the end of the 6 month trial period to determine any adverse impacts that may be
occurring as a result of the program. Qualified residents in these pilot areas will be notified of their
eligibility by the Public Works Department. Residents interested in the program would then be
required to follow the permit application process.
If approved, residents will be issued a maximum of two (2) parking permits. The permit application
process and issuance of parking permits will be administered and managed by the police department.
The permits will be valid for 1 calendar year and can be used on any qualified vehicle associated with
the qualified residence. The cost for a permit or an annual permit renewal will be $50.00. The cost for
the replacement of lost/stolen placards will also be $50.00. The fees will cover anticipated costs related
to the program, such as signage updates in the form of stickers, forms required for the program, the
permit placards and staff time required to manage the program. The daytime parking permits will allow
residents to park their vehicle, a visitor vehicle, and/or care givers vehicle in the time restricted area
without having to adhere to the posted time restrictions. The parking permits will be block specific (i.e.
only authorized in 200 block of Occidental Ave., the 300 block of Occidental Ave., etc). However, the
parking permits do not exempt vehicles from all other applicable laws pertaining to parking in the city,
including but not limited to, the 72 hour requirement (i.e. vehicles are to be moved every 72 hours or
be subject to tow), metered areas, red zones, handicap areas, etc.
The progress and effectiveness of this program will be reassessed at the end of the 6 month trial period. At that
time, Staff will present Council with the results of the program. At that time, Council could either discontinue
the program or continue it as a permanent program. With Council direction, the program could also be
expanded to include some (or all) fourteen (14) additional residential neighborhoods that would quality for
this Residential Parking Permit Program. The initial introduction to ordinance which will authorize the
establishment of preferential parking zones was held at a regularly scheduled city council meeting on February
19, 2008.
Attached is a Resolution establishing policy for Residential Parking Permit Program with the attached Exhibit
"B" defining the policies and procedures that the city will follow during the 6 month pilot program.
Attached is also a 2nd Resolution setting the fee structure for the Residential Parking Permit Program.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact of this recommendation is approximately$3,000.00. This total is based on the pilot
program only and it is assuming that most qualified residents (approx. 175)will be participating in the
program. The break down of the costs are as follows: $2,000.00 for staff time required to manage the program,
$500.00 for permit placards, $375.00 for signage update (i.e. stickers) and $250.00 for related
forms/paperwork for the program.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed new municipal code establishing preferential parking zones
2. Map showing the preferential parking zones/areas for the pilot program - Exhibit"A"
3. Resolution establishing policy regarding preferential parking areas outlining the program's policies and
Exhibit"B"procedures to be followed
4. Resolution setting the fee structure for the parking permit program
5. Attachment"1" (Notes from January 23rd public meeting and January 24`x'follow-up staff meeting
6. Attachment"2" Proposed new Residential Parking Permit Program(in its entirety with examples of
associated forms/documents/placards)
I ORDINANCE No.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 13.36.070 TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT
3 OF PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONES
PURSUANT TO VEHICLE CODE SECTION 22507
4
5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
6
7 Section 1. Parking on City streets can often be difficult in many areas, and the City has
8 established a number of time limited zones to ensure that parking is available to residents,
9 customers,and employees.However,these time limits impose a significant burden on the residents
10 themselves during the day, and can often cause the same difficulties for residents' guests and
I 1 workers in the residences. This ordinance is adopted in order to authorize the establishment of
12 preferential parking zones by Council resolution and to provide for enforcement ofpermit issuance
13 requirements.
14
15 Section 2. A new Section 13.36.070 is added to read as follows:
16 13.36.070 Preferential parking zones.
17 (a) The city council may establish by resolution preferential parking zones that would
18 exempt the motor vehicles of residents and the residents' guests on designated streets from the
19 restrictions of time-limited parking contained in sections 13.36.030, 13.36.040, 13.36.042, or
20 13.36.043, or any combination thereof that the council may deem appropriate that applies on the
21 designated streets.
22 (b) However,nothing contained in such a resolution shall allow or be construed to allow
23 any motor vehicle of a resident or a resident's guest to be exempt from any parking meter, no
24 parking designation, seventy-two hour parking limit, or any other parking limitation or curb
25 marking except as specifically listed in the preferential parking zone policy for the specified streets.
26 (c)Preferential parking zone permits will be issued on a calendar year basis, and a fee as
27 established by resolution of the city council shall be paid for each permit, permit renewal, and
28 permit reissuance.
11 1
I (d) It is unlawful for any person to:
2 (1)Alter,forge,counterfeit,or falsify any parking permit relating to a preferential parking
3 program or display or cause or permit to be displayed any such altered, forged, counterfeited or
4 false permit with intent to represent the permit has been issued by the city.
5 (2) Transfer, loan, sell, or otherwise provide a parking permit relating to a preferential
6 parking program to a person who is not eligible for such a permit under the terms of the preferential
7 parking program,or to display or cause or permit to be displayed any such unlawfully transferred
8 permit.
9 (3)Display or cause or permit to be displayed any parking permit relating to a preferential
10 parking program when the person knows or has reason to know that the person is not eligible or
11 is no longer eligible to display or cause or permit the permit to be displayed.
12
13 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
14
15 Mayor
16
17 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the
18 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day
19 of , 2008, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
20 the day of , 2008, by the following vote:
21
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
22 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
23 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
24
25 City Clerk
26
27
28
2
s
4
c� <v
O
WAY O OPS P P� JF.
ALMeR
\�y\N4\'(
G
u:
CITY OF BURIINGAME
;:� •p R M
1200-1400 BLOCK OF BELLEVUE AVENUE
200-400 BLOCK OF OCCIDENTAL AVENUE
G� R
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ESTABLISHING POLICY REGARDING PREFERENTIAL PARKING AREAS AND
POLICIES TO BE APPLIED IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE AREAS
WHEREAS,pursuant to Vehicle Code§ 22507,the City Council adopted Section
13.36.070 to authorize the City Council to establish preferential parking areas and policies with
regard to such areas;and
WHEREAS,the areas shown in Exhibit A hereto have significant parking issues that
requires imposition of time limits on parking by the general public during the day as established
in Chapter 13.36 of the Municipal Code;and
WHEREAS,the parking time limits create hardships for the residents in these areas who
may be at home during the day or who require persons to come to their homes to perform work in
or on the home; and
WHEREAS, a preferential parking permit program that would allow these residents to
obtain preferential parking permits that would exempt them from the parking time restrictions
during the day would be appropriate; and
WHEREAS,the policies contained in Exhibit B hereto that regulate the permit program
are reasonable and necessary to make the program effective,
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
1. A preferential parking permit program as authorized in Section 13.36.070 is approved
for the areas shown on Exhibit A hereto.
2. The policies and procedures for the program contained in Exhibit B area approved.
3. No later than January 31, 2009,the City Manager shall report to the City Council on
the effectiveness and usefulness of the preferential parking program and make any
recommendations for changes that the City Manager believes should be made to the program.
Mayor
1
1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of ,2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
U:\FII.,ES\RESO\preferentialparking2008.bpd.doc
2
EXHIBIT
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING
PERMIT PROGRAM
A. FORM OF PERMIT
The permit shall consist of a placard to be affixed to the rear view mirror of the vehicle of the
resident or guest.
B. ISSUANCE OF PERMIT
In order to obtain a permit,a resident will submit the following:
I. A complete application form in the resident's name and address, and signed by the
resident seeking the permit.
2. A copy of the current registration with a Department of Motor Vehicles for each vehicle
for which the applicant is requesting a permit.
3. Proof of residency of the applicant in the preferential parking permit area.
Acceptable proof of residency includes:
Vehicle registration
Utility Billing
Car insurance policy
Lease agreement
Copy of a preprinted check with financial institution showing the
resident's name and address
4. Payment of the fee set by Council resolution prior to issuance of the permit.
Permits will be issued on a calendar year basis regardless of when in the year they are actually
issued.
C. NUMBER OF PERMITS
The maximum number of permits that shall be issued to one home or residence is two,regardless
of the number of persons who may actually reside in the home or residence. Each apartment or
condominium unit is considered a residence for purposes of these policies.
D. EFFECT OF PERMIT
I. Authorized display of the preferential parking permit exempts the motor vehicle on which
the permit is displayed from compliance with the parking limits established in the
preferential parking area for which the permit was issued only for on-street parking as
follows:
—Any one-hour parking zone
A-1
F
—Any two-hour parking zone
—Any four-hour parking zone
2. The permit does not exempt the motor vehicle on which the permit is displayed from any
other parking restrictions in the preferential parking area, such as loading zones,no
parking zones, or disabled parking zones,nor for any other limits on parking, such as
vehicle heights. In particular, display of the parking permit does not exempt any motor
vehicle from the requirement that a vehicle be moved no less often than every 72 hours.
3. The permit does not apply in any way to any parking space for which there is a parking
meter or other payment device applied.
4. The permit does not apply for the parking of any vehicle, except a motor vehicle as
defined in the Vehicle Code, and further a permit shall not be issued or displayed for use
on any camp trailer,motor home,or commercial vehicle..
5. The preferential parking permit does not provide any warranty or representation that
parking of any kind will be available to the holder of the permit.
6. In order to be exempt,the permit must be attached to the rear view mirror of the motor
vehicle and readily visible from the front of the vehicle.
D. USE OF PERMIT
The person to whom the permit is issued may:
1. Use the permit for the person's own household; or
2. Provide a permit to a person who is working in the home or residence for use during the
time that the person is actually performing work in the home or residence; or
3. Provide a permit to a guest who is temporarily visiting the home or residence for use
during the period that the person is actually visiting the home or residence.
E. REVOCATION OF PERMIT
If the Chief of Police,or the Chief's authorized representative, determines that one or more
permits are being used by persons who are not eligible or have been misused or transferred in
violation of the Municipal Code or this policy,the Chief may revoke the permit or permits by
giving written notice to the person to whom the permit was issued. The holder of the permit may
request a meeting with the Chief of Police to present the holder's position; after considering the
holder's presentation,the Chief may affirm the revocation or rescind the revocation. The decision
of the Chief shall be final and binding on the permitholder. Upon revocation, the permitholder
will return all permits to the Burlingame Police Department.
F. CANCELLATION OF PERMITS
The preferential permit program may be cancelled and polices may be changed at any time,with
or without notice to the permitholders. Permitholders have no property right in the permit.
A-2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR ISSUANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
OF PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMITS
RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City is establishing a preferential parking permit program for use in
residential areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.36.070,the Council is to set the fees for the issuance
and administration of the permits by resolution; and
WHEREAS, a fee of$50 is a good rough approximation of the costs involved in the
issuance, administration, and oversight of the permits under the program,
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Master Fee Schedule for Police is amended to establish the following preferential
parking permit fees:
Preferential Parking Permits Section 13.36..070
Issuance (up to 2 permits for same $50.00
address)
Annual renewal (up to 2 permits for $50.00
same address)
Charge for replacement of lost $50.00
permit
Mayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do.hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day
of , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
Notes from the Residential Voluntary Permit Parking Program Public Meeting
January 23, 2008—Burlingame Recreation Center
Comments
• Agrees with history of parking situation as outlined by staff and need for program
• We already pay property taxes and should get free passes.
• Non-residents park outside of timed areas and walk downtown for free parking
• Let workers park in driveway while the homeowner moves car to street
• People should use their garages for parking,not storage
• The maximum number of passes should be the number of cars registered to the address in
excess of the number of parking spaces on site
• $50/year is not much to park excess cars
• The program can be expanded City-wide
• Cost is to cover enforcement
• There is no legal right to park in front of your home
• After the pilot program,please consider expanding to the area near Primrose &Howard
Questions
• How were costs determined? $50/year seems high?
• Is there a permit for those working at your home (example: roofers, painters)
• What is the lead time to get a permit?
• How long would a temporary permit be valid for?
• Why does Burlingame want to charge?
• Is there a maximum number of permits per apartment or home?
• How do we deal with the overflow into other areas?
• How were the streets for the pilot program chosen?
• Will the permit only be valid in certain areas?
• How do we get the program in other areas of the City? Do we first need to have a 2 hour
zone?
• Can we establish a permit area for employees of the Burlingame Avenue area?
• Can the permits be revoked?
Residential Parking Permit Program
Notes from Jan 24 staff meeting
Agreement Points
• Trial program will last for six months
• A parking survey will be conducted by PW prior to initiating the program
• A parking survey and program evaluation will be conducted between months five&six
of the program
• Surveys will include potential overflow areas
• Maximum of two permits per household(home or apartment)
• No visitors permits
• $50 annual fee for first permit;no cost for second permit
• Costs will cover signage,enforcement,administration,permits,etc
• Need to have a fine for selling permits
• Permit is only valid on the specific block of the address(*note that this is one of the
points that we will look at carefully during the evaluation phase)
• Implementation date has not been established
• Proposal to be given to Council at February 19`h meeting--notices sent early to residents
of affected areas and attendees of Jan 23`d meeting
Action Items
• Program to be redesigned based upon feedback from Jan 23`d meeting and notes as listed
above—Dean W
• Staff report to Council—Dean/Jack by Feb 11th
• Public notices developed and mailed—Augustine by Feb 151
• Next staff meeting(Syed,Art,Augustine,Jack,Dean,Randy): Feb 1",11:00am to
12:00noon—Conference Room A
City of Burlingame son;- Gzieps iF)
Police Department
2008-2009
The complete Rules and Regulations pertaining to the City of Burlingame 2008-2009
Residential Parking Permit Program are printed on the reverse side of this sheet.
For your convenience, listed below are the specific documents you must
Provide when applying for your residential parking permit
• Permit Application Form: A Permit Application Form is enclosed. Complete
this form and bring it with you to the Burlingame Police Department located at
1111 Trousdale Drive, Burlingame. This form is also available at the Burlingame
Police Department counter.
• Current Vehicle Registration: You must provide the most current DMV
vehicle registration (or copy) for each vehicle you requesting a permit for(limit
2),regardless of whether you are renewing, or applying for the first time.
• Proof of Residence: If your DMV vehicle registration shows an address other
than your present street address, you must provide proof of residency in another
acceptable form. This can be a driver's license, utility bill or rental agreement.
(See reverse side for complete Rules and Regulations)
3R �
2008-2009
Residential Parking Permit Program
Policy
1. A permit may be obtained by submitting a written application on a Burlingame Police
Department form. A permit shall be issued to an applicant who demonstrates occupancy
of property having its street address in a neighborhood for which permits are authorized.
Occupancy is defined for permit purposes as the home or abode of a tenant, or any
residence solely used by its owner, however briefly or sporadic.
2. Each permit shall be valid for the particular vehicle and neighborhood for which it is
issued. Permits shall expire on December 31St at midnight at the end of the year for
which it was issued, and shall not exempt the vehicle from any other provision of State
Law, the Burlingame Municipal Code, or other lawful regulations of parking.
3. Any vehicle, whether displaying a permit or not, must be moved every 72 hours.
Vehicles parked longer than 72 hours are considered abandoned and subject to citation
and being towed. I
4. The residential parking permit placard must be displayed/hung from the rear-view mirror
facing out. Vehicles may only park in the area for which they are authorized. i
5. Lost, damaged, or destroyed residential parking permits may be replaced at the request of
the original applicant (replacement fee associated).
6. All permits shall remain the property of the City of Burlingame.
7. Any misuse of the permit(s) shall cancel the exemption for that household/vehicle.
8. Any person employed by the City of Burlingame to enforce traffic or parking regulations
is authorized to confiscate or destroy unlawfully displayed or used permits.
9. A valid vehicle registration and proof of residency must be presented prior to the issuance
of the parking permit.
10. Residential parking permits are not valid for metered parking spaces, or in public parking
lots.
f
11. Only passenger non-commercial, passenger commercial (i.e. SUV's, small pick-up trucks
and vans), and company/leased vehicles (*not to exceed 3 tons) are allowed permits.
Boat trailers, camping trailers, motor-homes and work-type commercial vehicles/trailers
residing in a restricted parking permit zone are not covered in this program.
i
i
{
f
f
)ACO)5W >
City of Burlingame
Police Department
Residential Parking Program
Permit Application
—First time Renewal _Replacement
Please print clearly:
Name•
Street Address•
Zip Code: Telephone Number:
Number of permits requested(max.2):
I attest that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and that I have
received the Parking Permit Rules and Regulations.
X
Signature of Applicant Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ofce use only
Number of permits issued:
Permit number(s):
Zone:
Date issued: Issued by:
)ACO A )
City of Burlingame
Police Department
December 2008
Dear Resident:
The City's Residential Parking Permit Program is administered by the Burlingame Police
Department. The permits are valid for a 1 year permit cycle; the upcoming cycle will be
2009. The current permits (current color) will expire December 31, 2008; however there
will be a grace period of 1 month (January 31, 2009), for residents to obtain new permits.
Permits for the cycle year 2009 will need to be picked up in person at the Burlingame
Police Department located at 1111 Trousdale Drive, Burlingame.
The permit is to be placed on the vehicle of your choosing when parked in the restricted
areas. The permit is to be placed on the vehicle's rear-view mirror facing outward. If
there are any problems associated with your permits or you are a first time applicant, you
may handle it in the following manner:
In person at the Burlingame Police Department counter at 1111 Trousdale Drive,
Burlingame between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Please bring your completed
application form, current vehicle registration and proof of residency.
If you have any questions regarding this program, please call (650) 777-4100
�6ac�16�NS
CITY
C�
BURLINGAME
itic t u•
0
ORpORATED�
2009
,a
City of Burlingame
Resient
0853
a
D `lACNVQ�l
BURLtNGAME CITY OF B
Residential Parking Permit Program
Policy and Procedures
II� ' is
�ail
r
_ = r
ANf ,vim
x
n
F
g
Prepared by:
Sgt. Dean Williams
Burlingame Police Department
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
Residential Parking Permit Program
The City of Burlingame is committed to preserving livable and attractive neighborhoods.
One issue that may cause deterioration of neighborhoods is the excessive parking of non-
resident vehicles on residential streets for extended periods of time. A system of
preferential resident parking serves to reduce this strain on the residents of these
neighborhoods. The intent of this Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) is to allow
residents to park on-street in their neighborhood while restricting long-term parking by
non-residents.
Parking Permit Types
Residential Parking Permit Placard — Issued to residents within the RPPP area. These
permits allow residents to park on the street beyond the current posted time limit
restrictions within the RPPP area.
❖ Parking permits are issued as placards to be affixed to the resident's vehicle (rear
view mirror). The residential permit is valid for a one calendar year cycle and is
available from the Police Department.
❖ The number of permits that may be issued to either a single-family household or a
multi-family unit is two. It is understood that a greater amount of parking permits
may be issued than there are available on-street parking spaces. This will create an
environment of natural competition for on-street parking between neighborhood
residents without the influence of long-term non-resident parking.
❖ Parking permits may be issued only for passenger non-commercial and passenger
commercial (i.e., SUVs, small pick-up trucks, etc.) motor vehicles owned and
registered by legal residents of the RPPP area. Company and leased vehicles are also
eligible as long as the meet the requirements set forth. Permitted vehicles must not
exceed typical passenger vehicle size (i.e. small trucks, passenger van acceptable-less
than 3 tons). Boat trailers, camping trailers, motor homes and work-type commercial
vehicles are not eligible to use parking permits for on-street parking under the terms
of this parking permit program.
❖ Though the resident is responsible for acquiring a new permit by the first day of the
new annual permit cycle year (January 1), there is typically a 30-day grace period at
the beginning of the permit cycle during which the Police Department will issue
warnings. No other grace period (i.e., new resident to area, new car, etc.) is available
during the yearly parking permit cycle.
CADocuments and SettingsWanettenlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files10LK19F\RPPP Policy 2 13 08.doc 2
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
❖ The requirements to obtain a parking permit as a resident are:
➢ A completed application form in the residents' name and address.
➢ A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle the applicant is
requesting a parking permit.
➢ Proof of residency/ownership in the resident's/owner's name reflecting the
permit address in the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be the
vehicle registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a
preprinted personal check with the resident's name and address.
Fee for Residential Parking Permits
There will be a $50.00 charge for two (2) parking permit placards per household. These
placards are transferable and may be placed on any vehicle associated with that property.
Bail Schedule
If a resident fails to properly display their placard(s), they will be subject to any/all parking
restrictions in the RPPP area and any related citations/fines associated with those violations.
Misuse of Parking Permits
Any person selling, fraudulently using, reproducing or mutilating a parking permit issued in
conjunction with the RPPP shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to fine of not less
than $100.00 for each offense and the forfeiture of all permits in conflict, or such other fine or
penalty as the City Council may set by ordinance.
CADocuments and SettingsWanettenlLocal SettingsWemporary Internet FllestOLK19F\RPPP Policy 2 13 08.doc
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
POLICIES
All residential parking permit programs shall follow a set of policies that are consistent
from one program area to the next. This includes program area limits, enforceable times,
and implementation practices.
❖ The implementation of a Residential Parking Permit Program does not guarantee
the availability of parking spaces on a public street, or within a specific
neighborhood. Because more parking permits may be issued than there are
available on-street parking spaces, the program creates an environment of natural
competition for on-street parking among neighborhood residents without the
influence of long-term non-resident parking.
❖ The program allows for any resident or non-resident to park on-street beyond the
posted restricted hours if a parking permit is correctly displayed.
❖ Program enforcement hours will be determined based on the type of parking impact
generators such as schools, businesses and/or commercial districts. This will
provide for consistency among RPPP areas, and simplify enforcement of the
program times.
❖ Parking restrictions within RPPP areas must be consistent from corner to comer on
all streets to prevent "spill-over" or shifting of an on-street parking problem to an
adjacent non-restricted area.
❖ Limits of the parking permit neighborhood will be determined based on the
potential of parked cars to overflow and impact adjacent streets. This will be done
through a collaborative process involving both the applicant and Public Works staff.
❖ Parking permit holders will be issued permits to park along the street within the
limits (i.e. block specific) of their RPPP neighborhood area.
❖ Parking permits will be issued to owner(s) of qualified vehicle(s) registered at an
address (limit of 2)within a permit parking area.
❖ Only qualified passenger non-commercial, .passenger commercial (i.e., SL V's,
small pick-up trucks, etc.) vehicles, and company/leased are allowed permits. Boat
trailers, camping trailers, motor homes and work-type commercial vehicles are not
eligible for on-street parking within a RPPP area.
❖ Parking permits are not valid at metered parking spaces within business districts or
retail areas.
CADocuments and SettingslvanettenUmal Settings\Temporary Internet Files10LK19F\RPPP Policy 2 13 08.doc 4
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
❖ Parking permits are not valid within designated public parking lots.
❖ Vehicles displaying parking permits are subject to all other parking restrictions
including 12 and 24-minute spaces, white passenger loading zones, yellow loading
zones, handicap spaces and red zones.
❖ Displaying a residential parking permit does not exempt the vehicle from the City's
ordinance which requires a car to be moved every 72 hours.
❖ To process a request for implementation of a residential parking permit program, a
parking impact generator must exist. This program is not intended to restrict or
limit the amount of residential vehicles that may park on-street within a given
neighborhood.
❖ Any parking permit may be revoked if used contrary to the provisions of this policy.
CADocuments and SettingsWanettentLocal Settings\Temporary Internet File510LK19RRPPP Policy 2 13 O8.doc 5
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
PROCEDURES
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Residential parking permit program development should take into consideration all
practices as defined above. The procedures presented below provide for consistent
parking permit program development from one neighborhood to the next.
1. Any Burlingame resident may submit a request for consideration of a Residential
Permit Parking Program(RPPP)for his/her street to the Public Works Department
at City Hall.
2. The City staff will evaluate any impact that may currently be causing overflow
parking problems in the area, such as the presence of parking impact generators
(schools,businesses and/or commercial districts). Alternatives for maintaining on-
site parking or prevention of overflow parking, such as curb markings and new
meters will be examined before consideration of the RPPP.
3. If no alternative is available,Public Works will move forward with the evaluation
process for that neighborhood. Depending on the number of requests received from
other areas,the neighborhood may be put on a waiting list.
4. A meeting will be held between the applicant (the person requesting the permit
parking program)and City staff. This meeting will be to inform the applicant of the
next steps necessary for consideration of a permit parking program. City staff will
review all program practices and guidelines with the applicant to determine if they
are interested in proceeding further with program development. A primary
neighborhood contact will also be identified at this point.
5. With the applicant's input,City staff will determine the RPPP neighborhood limits
for the proposed program. Though the limits of the study area are determined
through a collaborative process,City staff shall make the final determination of the
RPPP area limits.
6. The applicant will then be responsible for circulating a petition to determine
neighborhood support within the RPPP area. A signature on the petition would
indicate support for further development of the RPPP. A standard RPPP petition
will be provided by the City. For the City to proceed,a minimum support of 67%
of residents within the proposed RPPP area is required overall, including at least
50%support of the residents on each street in the neighborhood. A resident may
sign the petition in support of RPPP development even though they may not wish to
participate in the program, since obtaining a parking permit for their vehicle is
strictly voluntary.
CT—ments and Setfings\—etten\Loral Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\0LK19nRPPP Polity 2 13 O9.doe 6
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
7. The petition shall be returned to the Public Works Department within 45 days of
issuance to the applicant. If the returned petition indicates that there is less than
67% support for the RPPP within the proposed area, or if the petition is not returned
within 45 days of issuance, no further action will be taken by staff on the
application. The application process will be officially terminated and the applicant
will be notified.
8. A neighborhood meeting will then be scheduled to formally present the residential
parking permit program to the interested residents of the proposed area. At this
time, City staff will discuss the positive and negative impacts the RPPP might have
on the neighborhood, and discuss the procedure for program implementation.
9. The Public Works Department will then conduct parking utilization surveys of the
designated neighborhood. Such a study may consist of a one- or two-day, mid-
week survey. To qualify for a residential permit parking program, the parking
survey must indicate that 75% of all on-street parking spaces within the proposed
area are occupied during any two one-hour periods between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
during the survey day.
10. If 75% occupancy of the on-street parking spaces is not observed, no further action
will be taken and evaluation of the RPPP request will be terminated.
11 . If 75% occupancy of the on-street parking spaces is observed, Public Works staff
will prepare a report for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) for
neighborhood and public discussion. Residents and neighbors of the proposed area
will receive public notice of the hearing no less than 7 days prior to the hearing
date.
12. At the TSPC public hearing, staff will present the facts of the request. The
applicant, or a designated neighborhood representative, is expected to participate in
the public hearing portion of the meeting to summarize the RPPP interests of the
neighborhood. There will also be an opportunity for additional testimony from the
public.
13. If after public discussion, the TSPC concurs with the City staff analysis and
determination to approve a permit parking program as requested, notification will
be sent to the neighborhood informing them_ of the implementation of the program,
as well as the new time-limit requirements for on-street parking within the permit
parking program area.
14. If the request for permit parking is denied or terminated (pursuant to Steps #7 and
#13 above), a second study of the same or similar RPPP study area will not be
conducted for a minimum of twelve months unless there is a significant, identifiable
change in parking characteristics as determined by City staff. Subsequent studies of
CADocuments and SettingsWanetten\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files10LK19F\RPPP Policy 2 13 08.doc 7
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
the same general study area will be subject to the same requirements and procedures
as the initial study process.
15. Any decision by City staff, and subsequent concurrence by the Traffic, Safety and
Parking Commission, is appealable to the City Council.
16. Day and time parking limitations of the proposed program will be evaluated by City
staff. For consistency and ease of enforcement by the Police Department, the
following is an example of a typical sign to be used in the program.
2-Hour Parking
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday — Saturday
Except Holidays or
When Parking Permit Is Displayed
17. Residential parking permits shall be valid for one year and participating residents
shall be solely responsible for renewing their permits every year before the
beginning of the next calendar year. Parking permits may be renewed in person at
the Police Station.
PROGRAM ELIMINATION
The process to remove a residential parking permit program is similar to a program
development. The procedures presented below provide for consistent parking permit program
removal.
1. A Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP) area, or part thereof, may be removed from
the permit program by City staff pursuant to:
o A valid request from the affected RPPP neighborhood, and a petition from that
neighborhood indicating support from at least 67% of the area wishing to be
removed from the RPPP.
o A determination by the City that removal from the RPPP is either in the
community's best interest, is in the best interest of public safety, or is at the City
Council's discretion.
2. Once the petition for removal is received by Police Department, a public hearing will be
scheduled for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) and the affected
neighborhood will be notified of the hearing.
3. If, at the TSPC public meeting, additional testimony or evidence is presented that calls into
question the validity of removing the RPPP, no further action shall be taken and processing
of the RPPP removal request will be halted.
CADocuments and settingsNanettenlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK19F\RPPP Policy 2 13 08.doc 8
Adopted Residential Parking Perndt Policy and Procedures-Revised
4. If the request for removal is approved by City staff, with concurrence from the TSPC, the
neighborhood shall be notified of the decision, and the program will be terminated at a set
date.
5. If an existing RPPP area is removed, any future request for reinstatement shall be subject
to the same process as that of a new RPPP area development.
CADocuments and SettingsWanetten1ocal SettingsUemporary Internet Files1OLK19RRPPP Policy 2 13 08.doc 9
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM
FREQUENTLYASKED QUESTIONS
What is a Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP)?
The City of Burlingame provides for residential permit parking programs as a remedy for
neighborhoods that are impacted by long-term on-street overflow parking from sources
(called parking impact generators) outside the neighborhood. These parking impact
generators include some high schools, business complexes and commercial areas. As this
program is intended to deter long-term on-street parking, short-term parking will be
permitted within any RPPP area for non-permitted vehicles.
Implementation of a RPPP area is a way to give residents of a designated area a better
chance to park near their homes. It is not intended to designate a specific parking space
along a property frontage. An RPPP area involves the posting of parking time limits or
parking restrictions from which local residents are exempt if a valid permit is properly
displayed within their vehicle. Residents within an approved parking permit neighborhood
may obtain a parking permit to display on their car that will allow them to park for more
than the posted time limits along their neighborhood street. Any qualified vehicle
registered to an address within a permit parking neighborhood is eligible to utilize a
parking permit. The number of parking permits issued per property is two.
Where are RPPP areas allowed?
Residential Parking Permit Programs are allowed within residential neighborhoods whose
on-street parking ability is impacted by parked cars from non-residents, or parking impact
generators.
Why is a policy and procedures document necessary?
The purpose of this document is twofold. The first reason to create a policy and
procedures document is so that all parking programs are consistent. For a residential
permit parking program to be effective it is essential that it can be enforced. One factor
that increases the ability for the Police Department to enforce parking restrictions in an
area is program consistency. Programs should be consistent from one area to another
within the City. Secondly, this document serves as a tool to establish criteria and process
expectations for both staff and the community while helping to define a collaborative
process.
Are residents who live in a RPPP area required to obtain parking permits?
Obtaining a parking permit is purely optional. You may decide to obtain a parking permit
which will allow you to park on the street during restricted hours, or you may decide not to
obtain a parking permit and be subject to the on-street parking restrictions of the street.
CADocurnents and SettingsWanettan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK19F\RPPP Policy 2 13 08.doc 10
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
How long does it take to establish a new RPPP area?
It can take several months to establish a new area. Depending on the size of the impacted
area, the overall process from initial request to program implementation could take eight to
twelve months or longer.
Can I use my parking permit to park in any space within an RPPP designated area?
Each parking permit issued will be for a specific RPPP neighborhood or zone. With the
appropriate parking permit, you may park within the boundaries of that specific RPPP area
only. Parking for a period of time greater than that posted, in an area other than that
designated by your parking permit, may result in your vehicle receiving a citation. The
RPPP cannot guarantee or reserve the permit holder a parking space within a designated
residential parking permit program area. Parking is on a first-come, first-served basis.
How are the restrictions enforced?
The Police Department will issue citations to vehicles that are in violation of the parking
restrictions. Enforcement is made by routine police patrols or by calling the Police
Department at (650) 777-4100.
Can a RPPP be abolished once an area has been created?
A RPPP may be removed after a re-evaluation process by City staff. The City is notified of the
request for removal, a petition is circulated, a public hearing is held and if successful, the RPPP
area is dissolved.
CADocuments and Settings\vanetten\Local SettingsUemporery Intemet Fles\OLK19RRPPP Policy 213 OB.doc 11
Adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy and Procedures-Revised
Drawbacks Associated with `Resident Only' Parking
Although there are many advantages associated with a RPPP, the City would like to point
out some of the disadvantages. Please read the following information carefully while
considering the impacts of implementing a Residential Parking Permit Program in your
neighborhood.
1. The implementation of a Residential Parking Permit Program does not guarantee the
availability of parking spaces on a public street, or within a specific neighborhood. The
program creates an environment of natural competition for on-street parking between
neighborhood residents without the influence of long-term non-resident parking.
2. Creating a new RPPP area can take several months. Other alternatives to solve the
neighborhood issue may be implemented much quicker.
3. A petition must be circulated by the applicant, and must be approved by at least 67% of
the residents within the proposed area. Sixty-seven percent of the residents can impose
their parking desire on the other 33% of residents.
4. A parking impact generator (i.e. business district, school etc.) must exist. A traffic
study is performed to verify impact generator parking. Many neighborhoods do not
qualify.
5. If you or your guest park in the street for longer than the posted time limit without a
permit, a parking citation will be issued. The current citation amount is $25.00 per
violation.
6. A residential parking permit program can be imposing to a neighborhood and create a
lot of inconvenience. These drawbacks must be weighed with the potential benefits
when considering the implementation of a program that would restrict outside parking
influences from your neighborhood.
CADocuments and SettingsWanettenlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files%OLK19F\RPPP Policy 2 13 08.doc 12
BURL STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE March 3,2008
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sus TED
BY
DATE: February 22,2008
APPR D
FRoM: Parks& Recreation Director(558-7307) BY �f
sUBJECr: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO CIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME URGING SUPPORT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PARKS
FOR THE FUTURE (MEASURE A)AT THE JUNE 3, 2008 ELECTION
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Burlingame Urging Support for the Adoption of the Parks for the
Future (Measure A) at the June 3, 2008 election.
BACKGROUND:
The "County of San Mateo Parks for the Future Ordinance", to be placed on the June 3, 2008
ballot, would establish a one-eighth of one percent retail transactions and use tax in the
incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County, for a period of 25 years. This would
increase the County sales tax from 8.25% to 8.375%. Revenues from the tax may only be used
for park acquisition, improvements, maintenance, programs, and operations, including recreation
and recreation programs.
During the first year that the tax is levied, net tax revenues, after deduction of administrative
expenses, will be apportioned among the County, all cities within the County ("Cities"), and the
MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, the Highlands Recreation District, and the Ladera
Recreation District(collectively, "Districts") on the following basis:
• The County will receive 42%of net tax revenues.
• Districts will receive 6% of net tax revenues. Of the amounts allocated to the Districts,
the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District will receive 70%, the Highlands
Recreation District will receive 20%, and Ladera Recreation District will receive 10% of
such amounts.
• Cities will receive 52% of net tax revenues, with each city to receive a portion of the total
Cities' allocation calculated on a per capita basis, using yearly population figures
published by the State Department of Finance. Notwithstanding the amounts calculated
on a per capita basis, each city will receive from the Cities' allocation a minimum
distribution equal to 1.357% of total net tax revenues and the remaining City allocations
will be adjusted accordingly.
In each year after the first year, the County, Districts, and Cities shall share in any growth in
sales tax revenues of up to four percent (4%) over the previous year in accordance with the
allocation percentages set forth above. In each year after the first year, the Cities and Districts
only shall share in any growth in sales tax revenues over the previous year which exceeds four
percent(4%). Districts will be allocated 10% and Cities will be allocated 90% of any such sales
tax revenues exceeding a four percent (4%) growth in sales tax revenues over the previous year.
The allocation of the funds in excess of the 4% growth for the respective District and City will be
in proportion to the shares established for each agency for the funds less than 4% growth. For
each year after the first year, the method of allocation to each of the Cities and Districts shall be
the same as that for first year, including the minimum allocation of 1.357% for each City.
The County and each city will establish a general fund baseline Parks and Recreation budget for
Fiscal Year 2007/08, measured in dollars. The baseline budget will be adjusted every five years,
beginning in Fiscal Year 2012/13, and continuing at five year intervals thereafter, by applying
the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or a successor
index. In order to receive its full share of sales tax proceeds for a given fiscal year, the County
and each city must either (1) maintain or increase its Parks and Recreation budget in dollars as
measured against the baseline budget, or(2) reduce its Parks and Recreation budget compared to
the baseline budget, in percentage terms, no more than the percentage by which the combined
budgets of all other non-public safety departments is reduced as measured against the combined
budgets of all other non-public safety departments for the prior fiscal year. In the event the
County or a city reduces its Parks and Recreation budget compared to the baseline budget,
measured on a percentage basis, more than percentage reduction of the combined budgets of all
other non-public safety departments over the prior year's combined budgets, or reduces its Parks
and Recreation budget compared to the baseline budget, measured on a percentage basis, while
the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments increases in relation to the prior
year's combined budgets, the sales tax revenue that would otherwise have been payable to that
County or city for that fiscal year shall be reduced by the difference between those percentage
variances. For each fiscal year beginning in Fiscal Year 2008/09, before sales tax revenues for
that year may be disbursed to the County or city, a resolution must be adopted stating the
baseline Parks and Recreation budget in dollars; the Parks and Recreation budget in dollars for
the fiscal year; the reduction in percentage terms of the Parks and Recreation budget from the
baseline, if any; and the variance in percentage terms of the combined budgets for all other non-
public safety departments from the combined budgets for the prior fiscal year. The County and
each City shall certify the data provided. All requests for disbursement must be made within the
fiscal year for which the measure funds are made available or the funds will not be disbursed to
the city or County and will be rolled over for the next year. For purposes of this section, neither
the baseline Parks and Recreation budget, nor any yearly Parks and Recreation budget used for
purposes of the calculations set forth herein, shall include any revenues from the sales tax
disbursed pursuant to this measure.
The following expenditure plan represents allocations for the first year of sales tax revenue
collection and distribution (Fiscal Year 2008-09), and is based on population figures published
by the State Department of Finance on January 1, 2007. The allocations will change from year
to year based on the allocation specified above, changes in published populations, and any
adjustments based on the failure of an entity to maintain its required general fund baseline Parks
and Recreation budget.
Expenditure Plan (Fiscal Year 2008-09)
Entity Population Percent Allocation
of Tax Revenue
County of San Mateo 733,496 42.00%
Highlands Recreation District N/A 1.20%
Ladera Recreation District N/A 0.60%
MidPeninsula Open Space District N/A 4.20%
Atherton, Town of 7,423 1.357%
Belmont, City of 25,897 1.773%
Brisbane, City of 3,789 1.357%
Burlingame, City of 28,667 1.962%
Colma, Town of 1,593 1.357%
Daly City, City of 106,160 7.266%
East Palo Alto, City of 32,630 2.233%
Foster City, City of 30,269 2.072%
Half Moon Bay, City of 12,912 1.357%
Hillsborough, Town of 11,122 1.357%
Menlo Park, City of 31,146 2.132%
Millbrae, City of 20,965 1.435%
Pacifica, City of 39,251 2.687%
Portola Valley, Town of 4,618 1.357%
Redwood City, City of 77,025 5.272%
San Bruno, City of 42,145 2.885%
San Carlos, City of 28,639 1.960%
San Mateo, City of 95,510 6.538%
South San Francisco, City of 62,614 4.286%
Woodside, Town of 5,564 1.357%
The estimated annual tax revenues available for distribution, after deduction for administrative
expenses, is $16,000,000, based on taxable sales during the 2002 calendar year. For FY 2008-
09, it is anticipated that revenues will be collected beginning the second quarter (October-
December). C/CAG will maintain and administer the tax revenues received, and will audit the
distribution and use of the revenues. C/CAG will receive 1% of the revenues for the first year
and will be reimbursed for actual costs in future years.
BUDGET IMPACT: If the Parks for the Future initiative is passed by the voters of San Mateo
County, it is anticipated the City of Burlingame would receive slightly over $300,000 each year
for the next 25 years, adjusted for annual growth of sales tax.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Urging Support for the
Adoption of the Parks for the Future(Measure A)at the June 3, 2008 election.
Attachment"A"
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
URGING SUPPORT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PARKS FOR THE FUTURE
MEASURE AT THE NNE 3, 2008, ELECTION
RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Burlingame, California:
WHEREAS,the San Mateo County Park System is an invaluable asset of recreation,
open space, and historical resources; and
WHEREAS, the Park System serves all of the residents of San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, the mandates of State government and the demands to provide social and
medical services have prevented the County from properly funding the Park System, creating a
backlog of some $100 million in deferred maintenance and staff shortages throughout the parks;
and
WHEREAS, city parks and recreation programs have also suffered cutbacks during the
past five years of tough economic times, and only through individual bond issues have some
cities been able to continue to provide the capital improvements needed for a growing population
that is growing younger; and
WHEREAS, groups of citizens and government officials have met over a period of
months to develop a comprehensive approach to the basic parks and recreational needs of the
community; and
WHEREAS, these groups have sought and gained support from the State Legislature in
authorizing the placement of a small sales tax increase on the ballot to provide this basic support;
and
WHEREAS, these groups have worked together to create a ballot measure that would
provide basic support to the San Mateo County Park System and provide needed revenue to local
agencies in the County to support park and recreation facilities and programs; and
WHEREAS,the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County has unanimously placed this
measure on the ballot for the June 2008 election; and
WHEREAS, the proposed measure would provide the City of Burlingame with an
assured source of revenue that could be used to help fund needed improvements and programs, in
particular an improved community center; and
WHEREAS,the revenues that would be available from this tax would be a significant
part of keeping the County and Burlingame an attractive place to live,
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
The City Council of the City of Burlingame urges support of the adoption of the Parks for
the Future measure for the June 3, 2008 election.
MAYOR
I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day
of, , and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Agenda
Item#
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: March 3, 2008
SUBMITTED BY L
APPROVED BY �tJb V
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 29, 2007
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: LETTER SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 2437, ENSURING
STATE OVERSIGHT OF REGIONAL WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor to
sign the attached letter supporting AB 2437 to ensure ongoing State oversight of
San Francisco Public Utility Commission's (SFPUC) program to rebuild the Hetch
Hetchy water system.
BACKGROUND: The Wholesale Regional Water System Security and Reliability
Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 1823 was approved by the Governor in 2002. AB 1823
established a process to ensure that the earthquake prone SFPUC regional water
system is rebuilt as soon as possible to withstand a potential seismic event and
ensure reliable water supply to the Bay Area. AB 1823 requires SFPUC to adopt a
water system improvement program for the Bay Area regional water system with a
financing plan and completion of high-priority projects. AB 1823 requires SFPUC to
submit annual progress status reports to various entities including the State
Department of Health and Seismic Safety Commission as well as State oversight of
the program.
DISCUSSION: The provisions of the existing AB 1823 have a repeal date of
December 31, 2010 while SFPUC water system improvement program is being
delayed and expected to continue beyond that date. AB 2437 is being introduced in
the State to extend the current repeal date to January 1, 2015. With delays in
implementing the water system capital improvement program, AB 2437 would
ensure continued State oversight of San Francisco's program through completion.
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter of
support to Assembly Member Ruskin.
Exhibits: Letter of support for SB 2437
S:\A Public Works Directory\Author,By Name\Murtuza\AB 2437 staff report.doc
BURLINGAME T4 eay Y
501 PRIMROSE ROAD,BURLINGAME,CA 94010-3997
www.burlingame.om
ROSALIE O'MAHONY,MAYOR TEL: (650)558-7200
ANN KEIGHRAN,VICE MAYOR FAX: (650)342-8386
CATHY BAYLOCK,COUNCILMEMBER EMAIL: council0burlinaame.oro
TERRY NAGEL,COUNCILMEMBER
JERRY DEAL,COUNCILMEMBER
February 28,2008
The Honorable Ira Ruskin
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento,Ca.94249-0021
Subject: Support of AB 2437(Ruskin)
Dear Assembly Member Ruskin,
The City of Burlingame supports your bill, AB 2437, co-authored by Assembly Members
Beall, Coto, Hayashi, Lieber, Mullin, Swanson, and Torrico, and Senators Alquist, Corbett
and Simitian.
This important bill ensures ongoing State oversight of San Francisco's program to rebuild
the earthquake prone Hetch Hetchy water delivery system. Two-thirds of the cost of this
program is paid by Bay Area water customers,and this legislation asks for no State money.
We support this valuable legislation to protect the health and safety, and economic well-
being of the Bay Area and the State.
Sincerely,
Rosalie O'Mahony
Mayor
cc: The Honorable Elaine Alquist,Senator
The Honorable Ellen Corbett,Senator
The Honorable Joseph Simitian,Senator
The Honorable Jim Beall,Assembly Member
The Honorable Joe Coto,Assembly Member
The Honorable Mary Hayashi,Assembly Member
The Honorable Sally Lieber,Assembly Member
The Honorable Gene Mullin,Assembly Member
The Honorable Sandre R.Swanson,Assembly Member
The Honorable Alberto Torrico,Assembly Member
Agenda Item 12 6z—
Meeting Date 3 3 8
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE_2007-O8 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2437
Introduced by Assembly Member Ruskin
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Lieber)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Beall, Coto, Hayashi, Mullin,
Swanson, and Torrico)
(Coauthors: Senators Alquist, Corbett, and Simitian)
February 21, 2008
An act to amend Sections 73502, 73504, 73510, 73512, and 73514
of the Water Code, relating to regional water systems.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2437, as introduced, Ruskin. Regional water systems.
The Wholesale Regional Water System Security and Reliability Act
(the act) requires the City and County of San Francisco (city) to adopt
a specified program of capital improvement projects designed to restore
and improve the bay area regional water system, as defined, and to
submit a report, on or before September 1 of each year, to various
entities describing the progress made on the implementation of the
capital improvement program during the previous fiscal year. The act
authorizes the city to determine that the completion dates for projects
contained in the program should be delayed or that different projects
should be constructed.
The act imposes various other requirements on regional wholesale
water suppliers, as defined, including a requirement that these suppliers
submit an annual report to the Legislature and the State Department of
Public Health describing the progress made on securing supplemental
sources of water to augment existing supplies during dry years.
99
AB 2437 —2—
Existing
2—Existing law makes inoperative these and related provisions on
December 31,2010,or on the date on which the State Director of Public
Health makes a specified notification and certification, whichever is
earlier, and repeals those provisions on the January 1 following that
earlier date.
This bill would require the city to identify in its progress report, any
project that is behind schedule, and, for each project so identified, to
describe its plan and timeline for making up the delay or adopting a
revised implementation schedule.
This bill would delete the December 31,2010 repeal date,and would
instead, repeal the act on January 1, 2015, and would make certain
technical changes to the act.By extending the period of time to January
1, 2015, during which certain requirements would apply to regional
wholesale water suppliers,the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 73502 of the Water Code is amended to
2 read:
3 73502. (a) The city,on or before February 1,2003,shall adopt
4 the program of capital improvement projects designed to restore
5 and improve the bay area regional water system that are described
6 in the capital improvement program report prepared by the San
7 Francisco Public Utilities Commission dated February 25, 2002.
8 A copy of the program shall be submitted, on or before March 1,
9 2003, to the State Department of Health Services. The program
10 shall include a schedule for the completion of design and award
11 of contract, and commencement and completion of construction
12 of each described project. The schedule shall require that projects
13 representing 50 percent of the total program cost be completed on
14 or before 2010 and that projects representing 100 percent of the
15 total program cost be completed on or before 2015. The program
99
-3— AB 2437
1 shall also contain a financing plan.The city shall review and update
2 the program, as necessary, based on changes in the schedule set
3 forth in the plan adopted pursuant to subdivision(d).
4 (b) The plan shall require completion of the following projects:
5
6 Project Location Project
7 Identification
8 Number
9
10 1. Irvington Tunnel Alternative Alameda/Santa 9970
11 Clara Counties
12 2. Crystal Springs Pump Station San Mateo County 201671
13 &Pipeline
14 3. BDPL 1 &2-Repair of Alameda/San 99
15 Caissons/Pipe Bridge Mateo Counties
16 4. BDPL Pipeline Upgrades at Alameda County 128
17 Hayward Fault
18 5. Calaveras Fault Crossing Alameda County 9897
19 Upgrade
20 6. Crystal Springs Bypass San Mateo County 9891
21 Pipeline
22 7. BDPL Cross Connections 3 & Alameda/Santa 202339
23 4 Clara Counties
24 8. Conveyance Capacity West of Alameda/Santa 201441
25 Irvington Tunnel Clara/San Mateo
26 Counties
27 9. Calaveras Dam Seismic Alameda County 202135
28 Improvements
29
30 (c) The city shall submit a report to the Joint Legislative Audit
31 Committee, the Seismic Safety Commission, and the State
32 Department of 11ealth Serviees Public Health, on or before
33 September 1 of each year, describing the progress made on the
34 implementation of the capital improvement program for the bay
35 area regional water system during the previous fiscal year. The
36 city shall identify in the report any project that is behind schedule,
37 and,for each project so identified, shall describe the city's plan
38 and timeline for either making up the delay or adopting a revised
39 schedule pursuant to subdivision (d).
99
AB 2437 —4-
1
4-1 (d) (1) The city may determine that completion dates for
2 projects contained in the capital improvement program adopted
3 pursuant to subdivision (a), including those projects described in
4 subdivision(b),should be delayed or that different projects should
5 be constructed.
6 (2) The city shall provide written notice, not less than 30 days
7 prior to the date of a meeting of the city agency responsible for
8 management of the bay area regional water system, that a change
9 in the program is to be considered. The notice shall include
10 information about the reason for the proposed change and the
11 availability of materials related to the proposed change. All bay
12 area wholesale customers shall be permitted to testify or otherwise
13 submit comments at the meeting.
14 (3) If the city adopts a change in the program that deletes one
15 or more projects from the program, or postpones the scheduled
16 completion dates, the city shall promptly furnish a copy of that
17 change and the reasons for that change to the State Department of
18 11eal 1- Public Health and the Seismic Safety Commission.
19 The State Department of 1
7,.alt Sere public Health and the
20 Seismic Safety Commission shall each submit written comments
21 with regard to the significance of that change with respect to public
22 health and safety to the city and the Joint Legislative Audit
23 Committee not later than 90 days after the date on which those
24 entities received notice of that change.
25 SEC. 2. Section 73504 of the Water Code is amended to read:
26 73504. (a) Commencing in 2003, a regional wholesale water
27 supplier shall submit a report to the Legislature and the State
28 Department of-11eal-th Serviees Public Health, on or before
29 February 1 of each year, describing the progress made during the
30 previous calendar year on securing supplemental sources of water
31 to augment existing supplies during dry years.
32 (b) In order to supply adequately, dependably, and safely the
33 requirements of all users of water, the city shall continue its
34 practice of operating the reservoirs in the Counties of Tuolumne
35 and Stanislaus in a manner that ensures that the generation of
36 hydroelectric power will not cause any reasonably anticipated
37 adverse impact on water service. The city shall assign higher
38 priority to delivery of water to the bay area than to the generation
39 of electric power, unless the Secretary of the Interior, in writing,
40 notifies the city that doing so would violate the Raker Act(63 P.L.
99
-5— AB 2437
1 41). The city shall make available to the public, on request, its
2 plans of operations(rule curves) for these reservoirs.
3 (c) The city shall be deemed to be a local public agency for the
4 purposes ofArticle 4(commencing with Section 18 10)of Chapter
5 11 of Part 2 of Division 2.
6 SEC. 3. Section 73510 of the Water Code is amended to read:
7 73510. Notwithstanding Section 116500 of the Health and
8 Safety Code, the State Department of Health-Seriiees Public
9 Health shall ensure that the bay area regional water system is
10 operated in compliance with the California Safe Drinking Water
11 Act(Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 116275) of Part 12 of
12 Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code) and the guidelines
13 established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
14 for the purposes of administering the comparable provisions of
15 the federal Safe Drinking Water Act(42 U.S.C. Sec. 300f et seq.).
16 SEC. 4. Section 73512 of the Water Code is amended to read:
17 73512. A regional wholesale water supplier shall reimburse
18 the state for all costs incurred by the State Department ofh
19 Sefviees Public Health or the Seismic Safety Commission in
20 carrying out the duties imposed by this division. The bay area
21 wholesale customers shall reimburse the city for their share of
22 those costs as provided in the master water sales contract. The
23 wholesale customers of regional wholesale water suppliers other
24 than the city are responsible for reimbursing the regional wholesale
25 water supplier for their proportionate share of those costs,through
26 the imposition of water charges.
27 SEC. 5. Section 73514 of the Water Code is amended to read:
28 73514. This division shall beeome inoperative on the earlie
29 of either of the following dates, and on January 1 itfffnediately
30 Following that earlier date, is repealed'.
31 (a) The date on whieh the State Direeter of Health Sefviees
32 notifies, in wiriting,the ehairperson of the joint Legislative Attdit
33 Gommittee and eertifies that the eity has awarded eentraets for
34
35 of Seetion 73502.
36 .
37 73514. This division shall remain in effect only until January
38 1, 2015, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
39 statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2015, deletes or extends
40 that date.
99
AB 2437 —6-
1
6-1 SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
2 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
3 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
4 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
5 level of service mandated by this act,within the meaning of Section
6 17556 of the Government Code.
O
99
POLICE DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L. Van Etten
Chief of Police
January, 2008
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I want to thank the members of the City Council for your continued support of the police department.
The approval of the SLESF/COPS funding grant and the temporary over hire of police officers in
anticipation of planned retirements makes a significant difference in the police department's ability to
serve our community and keep our citizens (and police officers) safe.
I've previously mentioned the police department routinely and continuously receives information from
the public regarding a number of criminal, traffic and parking related matters. All of these matters are
immediately addressed, prioritized (based on the safety of the community), and, depending on
staffing levels, handled in the most effective manner possible. When necessary, overtime is used and
(or) additional outside resources are also brought in to assist current staff with specific problems or
unusual criminal activities.
The police department continues in a "transitional stage" of moving from an older, more experienced
department to a younger one. All four of our newest officers have been released from our training
program and are now solo officers. Two officer trainees will complete their 6 month police academy
training and be assigned to our Field Training Program in February. Two additional new officers have
been hired and will attend the next police academy in March. The department is in the process of
hiring 2 to 3 additional officers as positions will become available through the anticipated retirement
of approximately 6 to 7 officers through the end of the 08-09 FY. Additionally, the department is in the
process of hiring to fill 1 Parking Enforcement Officer position (and possibly a second), as well as
creating an eligibility list to hire additional per diem dispatchers.
Moving citations have increased this month compared to last year at this time. Officers recently
received training with radar and I believe citations will gradually increase in the coming months.
Parking citation totals are down for the month, due in part to our replacing of a PEO who has retired.
Included with this memo are the most recent selective traffic enforcement areas related to addressing
traffic related complaints in our community. This information also includes the types of violations that
are occurring in our city. At the present time, the selective traffic enforcement areas are currently
being monitored by our patrol officers with the assistance of our only motorcycle officer. We will be
training a second motorcycle officer in the next few months. Citizen Speed Watch is about ready to
begin and we are moving forward with the purchase of new portable radios and a repeater to
enhance our communications for officers in the south portion of Burlingame.
Officer Bryson will begin his month long training with his new K-9's in February. The additional K-9
handler, Officer Duren, will begin K-9 training in May/June. As previously mentioned, these additions
1111 Trousdale Drive- Post Office Box 551 -Burlingame, California 94011-0551 -(650)777-4100- Fax (650)697-8130
will provide three K-9's for our department,consistent with the numbers we had in years prior to
2002.As you know,the Burlingame community has personally contributed to and supported this
program.The K-9's will help protect our community and our dedicated police officers,as well as
provide tracking and drug detection.
At the request of our community,the police department has started educating residents in
Neighborhood Watch(NW),a crime education and prevention program.The police department
recently completed NW presentations for the following neighborhoods: Laurel Ave(Oak Grove Area),
1400 block of Castillo Avenue, Elm Avenue,and the Plymouth Way area.Sergeant Jim Ford has
done an excellent job and has worked hard to re-establish the police department's return to our
Neighborhood Watch Program.
Please remember that the information contained in the attached monthly police department report is
displayed in both numbers and percentages.The percentages of certain crimes might have
dramatically increased or decreased in percentage(compared to the previous month or year).When
reviewing the police department report also consider the actual numbers of various crime categories
in conjunction with the percentages. Even though the percentages may have increased or
decreased,the actual number change may be slight or negligible. Feel free to contact me at anytime
if you have any questions or concerns about the numbers or percentages.
For your edification, I've attached a document comparing the number of officers and calls for service
for the police department between the years of 1994—2007,inclusive.The police department,along
with every other department in our city,is continually working hard(with increased calls and workload
demands)to maintain,and in some instances, increase the high level of service that our community
has come to expect.
As always, I continue to be so proud of the dedication and sacrifices made by all of the employees of
the police department.Our employees work tirelessly day and night(and place themselves in harm's
way)to protect and serve each of you and all other citizens in our great community.On behalf of all
our employees,I thank you for your continued support of the Burlingame Police Department.
Kindly feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Chief Van Etten
Burlingame Police Department
MEMORANDUM
To: All Patrol Personnel
From: Sgt. Williams
Date: 02/15/08
Subject: Selective Enforcement
As time permits, please advise your teams to attempt selective enforcement in the listed
areas:
Location Violation Description Time of offense Date Reported
Blgm Ave. 21950 VC yield to ped Daytime hours 02/01/08
Bloomfield 22350 VC Speeding Evening hours 12/26/07
Calif. Dr. 22350 VC Speeding Commute hours 12/13/07
El Camino 22350 VC Speeding All hours 10/31/07
(n/of Broadway)
Crossway 22350 VC Speeding AM Commute 10/25/07
Douglas Ave. 22350 VC Speeding AM/PM Commute 10/11/07
Howard Ave. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 10/11/07
(East end)
Howard(w/b)@ 22101(d)VC Turn required All hours 9/30/07
Cal.
Carolan Ave. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 9/29/07
Davis Dr. 21950 VC yield to ped Morning 9/26/07
(1800 blk.)
Carolan@North 22450 VC Stop sign School commute 9/17/07
Lane
Toyon&Morre1122350 VC Speeding Morning 9/4/07
1400 Bellevue 22350 VC Speeding All hours 8/22/07
Hillside Dr. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 8/25/07
Howard/ECR 21950 VC yield to ped All hours 8/01/07
BUKLINUAME POLICE DEPARTMENT
Comparisons -Total Calls For Service
Year Calls For Service Sworn Officers Average/Calls/PerOff
94 17,532 46 381
95 19,568 46 425
96 22.563 46 490
97 26,452 46 575
98 27,511 46 598
99 21,937 48 457
00 20.387 48 425
O1 20,469 50 409
02 23.301 43 542
03 24.133 43 561
04 21.931 41 535
05 21.520 41 525
06 22.825 42 543
07 26.275 42 625
14 Year Average 22,600 44 513
01/31/2008
02-15-08 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1
FOR: JANUARY, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change 8 Change
Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0
Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0
Rape By Force 0 0 0 0 0
Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery Firearm 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery Knife 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery Strong-Arm 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0
Assault - Knife 0 0 0 0 0
Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 0 0 0 0 0
Assault - Other (Simple) 0 12 0 12 -12 -100.00
Burglary - Forcible Entry 0 3 0 3 -3 -100.00
Burglary - Unlawful Entry 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00
Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Shoplifting 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Larceny From Motor Vehicle 0 15 0 15 -15 -100.00
Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 0 14 0 14 -14 -100.00
Larceny Bicycles 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Larceny From Building 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 5 0 5 -5 -100.00
Larceny All Other 0 7 0 7 -7 -100.00
Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 0 7 0 7 -7 -100.00
Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 0 0 0 0
Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 0 0 0
------ ------ ------ ------
0 74 0 74
0 74 0 74
02-15-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1
CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change
All Other Offenses 0 21 0 21 -21 -100.00
Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0
Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0
Arson 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0
Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0
Bomb Threat 0 0 0 0 0
Bribery 0 0 0 0 0
Check Offenses 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Child Neglect/prot custody 0 5 0 5 -5 -100.00
Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0
Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0
Credit Card Offenses 0 0 0 0 0
Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0
Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0
Death Investigation 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00
Disorderly Conduct 0 0 0 0 0
Driver's License Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Driving Under the Influence 0 11 0 11 -11 -100.00
Drug Abuse Violations 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00
Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Drunkeness 0 11 0 11 -11 -100.00
Embezzlement 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Escape 0 0 0 0 0
Extortion 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
False Police Reports 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0
Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Forgery and Counterfeiting 0 0 0 0 0
Found Property 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00
Fraud 0 3 0 3 -3 -100.00
Gambling 0 0 0 0 0
Harrassing Phone Calls 0 6 0 6 -6 -100.00
02-15-OB MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2
CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD.. . Change 16 Change
Hit and Run Accidents 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Impersonation 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Incest 0 0 0 0 0
Indecent Exposure 0 0 0 0 0
Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0
Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0
Lewd Conduct 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Liquor Laws 0 0 0 0 0
I
Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0
Marijuana Violations 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Mental Health Cases 0 8 0 8 -8 -100.00
Missing Person 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00
Missing Property 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00
Municipal Code Violations 0 9 0 9 -9 -100.00
Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 0 0
Offenses Against Children 0 0 0 0 0
Other Assaults 0 12 0 12 -12 -100.00
Other Juvenile Offenses 0 0 0 0 0
Other Police Service 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0
Parole Violations 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Perjury 0 0 0 0 0
Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 0 0
Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0
Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0
Probation Violations 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Prowling 0 0 0 0 0
Resisting Arrest 0 0 0 0 0
Restraining Orders 0 0 0 0 0
Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0
Sex Offenses 0 0 0 0 0
Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 0 0 0
Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0
Stalking 0 0 0 0 0
)2-15-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3
CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change
Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 0 0 0 0
Suspended License 0 5 0 5 -5 -100.00
Pax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0
rerrorist Threats 0 0 0 0 0
rowed Vehicle 0 36 0 36 -36 -100.00
trespassing 0 0 0 0 0
truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 0 0
JS Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0
Vandalism 0 12 0 12 -12 -100.00
Vehicle Code Violations 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Violation of Court Order 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Narrants - Felony 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00
Narrants - Misd 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00
Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 3 0 3 -3 -100.00
Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0
------- ------ ------ ------
0 189 0 189
0 189 0 189
02-15-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1
CITY REPORT
FOR: JANUARY, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act
Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . .
Parking Citations 2929 3 , 731 2 , 929 3 , 731
Moving Citations 404 245 404 245
------- -- ---- ------ ------
3333 3 , 976 3 , 333 3 , 976
------- ------ ------ ------
------- ------ ------ ------
3333 3 , 976 3 , 333 3 , 976
BURLINGAME
Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 02/15/2008 at 02 : 32 : 44 PM
Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 01/01/2008 to 01/31/2008
Data Type Reported on: PARKING
Valid % All Voids % A11
Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid
--------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------------------------------------------
UVISO 355 788 28.63 13 29.55 98.38
DOTSON 509 809 29.40 12 27.27 98.54
FEITELBERG 508 1 0.04 0 0.00 100.00
3ARRETT 501 320 11.63 8 18.18 97.56
SMITH 654 834 30.31 11 25.00 98.70
Potal 2752 44
Page 1 of 1