2017 Development User Fee Cost Recovery Findings WilldanCity of Encinitas
Development Services Fee Study Report
September 7, 2017
Corporate Office: Office Locations:
27368 Via Industria Anaheim, CA New York, NY
Suite 200 Oakland, CA Orlando, FL
Temecula, CA 92590 Sacramento, CA
Tel: (951) 587‐3500
Tel: (800) 755‐6864
Fax: (951) 587‐3510
www.willdan.com
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1
User Fee Background ........................................................................................................................... 2
Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
California User Fee History ................................................................................................................................... 2
Additional Policy Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 3
Study Objective.................................................................................................................................... 4
Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Aim of the Report ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Project Approach and Methodology ..................................................................................................... 6
Conceptual Approach ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates ................................................................................................................................ 6
Summary Steps of the Study ................................................................................................................................. 7
Allowable Costs ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Quality Control / Quality Assurance ..................................................................................................................... 8
Reasons for Cost Increases / Decreases Over Current Fees ................................................................................. 9
City Staff Contributions ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Encinitas User Fees ............................................................................................................................ 10
Cost Recovery ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Subsidization ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Impact on Demand (Elasticity) ............................................................................................................................ 11
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Building ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Planning ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Engineering ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Fire .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered .......................................................................... 15
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study iii
Appendix B – Fully Burdened Hourly Rates ......................................................................................... 16
Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis & Suggested Fee Levels ............................................................ 18
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Encinitas (the City) engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by
the City to support Development Services Activities for which the City charges user fees. Due to the complexity and
the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to
identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities. This report and the appendices herein identifies 100%
full cost recovery for City services and the recommended level of recovery as determined through discussion with
departmental staff.
The reality of the local government fee environment is that significant increases to achieve 100% cost recovery can
often not be feasible, desirable, or appropriate depending on policy direction ‐ particularly in a single year. The
recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 2
USER FEE BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments have adopted user fees to fund programs and services
that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole. As cities struggle to maintain levels of service
and variability of demand, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and have
implemented cost‐recovery targets. To the extent that governments use general tax monies to provide individuals
with private benefits, and not require them to pay the full cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the
government is limiting funds that may be available to provide other community‐wide benefits. In effect, the
government is using community funds to pay for private benefit. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have more
control over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute.
Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition
218, and the California Code of Regulations. The Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either
ordinance or resolution, and that 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 as the charge would then be considered
a tax and not a fee.
CALIFORNIA USER FEE HISTORY
Before Proposition 13, California cities were less concerned with potential subsidies and recovering the cost of their
services from individual fee payers. In times of fiscal shortages, cities simply raised property taxes, which funded
everything from police and recreation to development‐related services. However, this situation changed with the
passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
Proposition 13 established the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the
state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference
between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996)
further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a
supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Considering these regulatory changes, cities have little control
and very few successful options for new revenues. Compounding this limitation, the State of California took a series
of actions in the 1990’s and 2000’s to improve the State’s fiscal situation—at the expense of local governments. As
an example, in 2004‐05, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (“ERAF”) take‐away of property taxes and
the reduction of Vehicle License Fees have severely reduced local tax revenues.
In addition, on November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the “Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative,”
which is aimed at defining “regulatory fees” as a special tax rather than a fee, thus requiring approval by two‐thirds
vote of local voters. These regulatory fees are typically intended to mitigate the societal and environmental impacts
of a business or person’s activities. Proposition 26 contains seven categories of exceptions. The vast majority of
fees that cities would seek to adopt will most likely fall into one or more of these exemptions.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 3
ADDITIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In recent years, there has been a growing trend for municipalities to update their fee schedules to reflect the actual
costs of certain public services primarily benefitting users. User Fees recover costs associated with the provision of
specific services benefiting the user, thereby reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes.
In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and administering user
services, it is common for local governments to recover support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to a
local government’s central service departments that are properly allocable to the local government’s operating
departments. Central services support cost allocations were incorporated using the resulting indirect overhead
percentages determined through the Cost Allocation Plan. This plan was developed prior to the User Fee study to
determine the burden placed upon central services by the operating departments in order to allocate a
proportionate share of central service cost.
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 has the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, it is recommended that
the City include an inflationary factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule to allow the City Council, by
resolution, to annually increase or decrease the fees.
The City may choose to employ one of many different inflationary factors. The most commonly used inflator is some
form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as it is widely well known and accepted. A similar inflator is the implicit price
deflator for GDP, which is much like the CPI except that while the CPI is based on the same “basket” of goods and
services every year, the price deflators’ “basket” can change year to year. Since the primary factor for the cost of a
City’s services is usually the costs of the personnel involved, using an inflationary factor that ties more directly to the
personnel costs can be suitable if there is a clear method, or current practice of obtaining said factor.
Each City should use an inflator that they believe works the best for their specific situation and needs. It is also
recommended that the City perform this internal review annually with a comprehensive review of services and
fees performed every three to five years, which would include adding or removing fees for any new or eliminated
programs/services.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 4
STUDY OBJECTIVE
As the City of Encinitas seeks to efficiently manage limited resources and adequately respond to increased service
demands, it needs a variety of tools. These tools provide assurance that the City has the best information and the
best resources available to make sound decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, maintain compliance with state
law and local policies, and meet the needs of the City administration and its constituency. Given the limitations on
raising revenue in local government, the City recognizes that a User Fee Study is a very cost‐effective way to
understand the total cost of services and identify potential fee deficiencies. Essentially, a User Fee is a payment for
a requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits an individual or group.
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is based on the full cost of providing City services, including
direct salaries and benefits of City staff, direct departmental costs, and indirect costs from central service support.
This study determines the full cost recovery fee for the City to provide each service; however, each fee is set at the
City’s discretion, up to 100% of the total cost, as specified in this report.
The principle goal of the study was to help the City determine the reasonable full cost of the services that the City
provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including:
Developing a rational basis for setting fees
Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable, of each fee in the model
Enhancing fairness and equity
Ensuring compliance with State law
Developing an updatable and comprehensive list of fees
Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals
The study results will help the City better understand its true costs of providing services and may serve as a basis for
making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate fees, if any, to collect from individuals and
organizations that require individualized services from the City.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 5
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the user fees charged by the following Encinitas
departments and fee groups:
Building
Planning
Engineering
Fire Prevention
The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection
and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of
individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels.
AIM OF THE REPORT
The User Fee Study focused on the cost of City services, as City staff currently provides them at existing, known, or
reasonably anticipated service and staff levels. This report provides a summary of the study results, and a general
description of the approach and methods Willdan and City staff used to determine the recommended fee schedule.
The report is not intended to document all the numerous discussions throughout the process, nor is it intended to
provide influential dissertation on the qualities of the utilized tools, techniques, or other approaches.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 6
PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determine the “reasonable cost” of each service provided by the City for
which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City’s fee, but it
serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected.
The standard fee limitation established in California law for property‐related (non‐discretionary) fees is the
“estimated, reasonable cost” principle. To maintain compliance with the letter and spirit of this standard, every
component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures, time estimates, and
improvement valuation clearly indicates reliance upon estimates for some data.
FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATES
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is primarily based on the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (FBHRs)
that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing services. The FBHRs include not only personnel
salary and benefits, but also any costs that are reasonably ascribable to personnel. The cost elements that are
included in the calculation of fully burdened rates are:
Salaries & benefits of personnel involved
Operating costs applicable to fee operations
Departmental support, supervision, and administration overhead
Internal Service Costs charged to each department
Indirect City‐wide overhead costs applied through the Cost Allocation Plan
An important part of determining the fully burdened rate is in the calculation of productive hours for personnel.
This calculation takes the available workable hours in a year of 2,080 and adjusts this figure to account for calculated
or anticipated hours’ employees are involved in non‐billable activities such as paid vacation, sick leave, emergency
leave, holidays, and other considerations as necessary. Dividing the full cost by the number of productive hours
provides the FBHR.
The FBHRs are then used in conjunction with time estimates, when appropriate, to calculate a fees' cost based on
the personnel and the amount of their time that is involved in providing each service.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 7
SUMMARY STEPS OF THE STUDY
The methodology to evaluate most User Fee levels is straightforward and simple in concept. The following provides
a summary of the study process steps:
ALLOWABLE COSTS
This report identifies three types of costs that, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a service
(Appendix A). Costs are defined as direct labor, including salary and benefits, departmental overhead costs, and the
City’s central services overhead, where departmental and central service overhead costs constitute support costs.
These cost types are defined as follows:
Direct Labor (Personnel Costs): The costs related to staff salaries for time spent directly on fee‐
related services.
Departmental Overhead: A proportional
allocation of departmental overhead costs,
including operational costs such as supplies
and materials that are necessary for the
department to function.
Central Services Overhead: These costs,
applied through the Cost Allcoaiton Plan,
represent services provided by those
Central Services Departments whose
primary function is to support other City
departments.
Data Analysis
Department Interviews
Time Estimates
Labor Costs
Building Cost Layers
Direct Services
Indirect Services
Department Overhead
City‐Wide Overhead
Set Fees
Define the Full Cost of
Services
Set Cost Recovery Policy
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 8
METHODOLOGY
The two methods of analysis for calculating fees used in this report are the:
Case Study Method (Standard Unit Cost Build‐Up Approach): This approach estimates the actual labor and
material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. This analysis is suitable when City
staff time requirements do not vary dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and
cost requirements are easy to identify at the project’s outset. Further, the 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. 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.
Programmatic Approach: The standard Case Study approach relies upon the detailed analysis of specific
time estimates, salaries and benefits, expenditures, and overhead costs. In many instances, the underlying
data are not available or vary widely, leaving a standard unit cost build‐up approach impractical. In addition,
market factors and policy concerns (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence fee levels more than other
types of services. With these general constraints, and to maximize the utility of this analysis, Willdan
employed a different methodology where appropriate that fit the programs’ needs and goals individually.
QUALITY CONTROL / QUALITY ASSURANCE
All study components are interrelated, thus flawed data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to
be inconsistent and unsound. The elements of our Quality Control process for User Fee calculations include:
Involvement of knowledgeable City staff
Clear instructions and guidance to City staff
Reasonableness tests and validation
Normalcy/expectation ranges
FTE balancing
Internal and external reviews
Cross‐checking
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 9
REASONS FOR COST INCREASES / DECREASES OVER CURRENT FEES
Within the fee tables in Appendix C, the differences are identified between the full costs calculated through the
study and the fee levels currently in effect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from many
possible factors including:
Previous fee levels may have been set at levels less than full cost intentionally, based on policy decisions
Staffing levels and the positions that complete fee and service activity may vary from when the previous
costs were calculated
Personnel and materials costs could have increased at levels that differed from any inflationary factors used
to increase fees since the last study
Costs that this study has identified as part of the full cost of services may not have been accounted for in a
previous study
o Departmental overhead and administration costs
o Indirect overhead from Central Service allocations
Changes in processes and procedures within a department, or the city as a whole
CITY STAFF CONTRIBUTIONS
As part of the study process, Willdan received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, which
contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
Budget and other cost data
Staffing structures
Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions
Direct and indirect work hours (billable/non‐billable)
Time estimates to complete work tasks
Frequency and current fee levels
Review of draft results and other documentation
A User Fee Study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments—on top of
their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions from City staff were critical to this study. We
would like to express our appreciation to the City and its staff for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes,
helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 10
ENCINITAS USER FEES
COST RECOVERY
The cost recovery models, by department/division fee type, are presented in detail in Appendix C. In General, full
cost recovery is determined by summing the estimated amount of time each position (in increments of minutes or
hours) spends to render a service. Time estimates for each service rendered were predominately determined by
Willdan and City Staff through a time and materials survey conducted for each department/division fee included in
the study. The resulting cost recovery amount represents the total cost of providing each service. The City’s current
fee being charged for each service, if applicable, is provided in this section, as well, for reference.
It is important to note that the time and materials survey used to determine the amount of time each employee
spends assisting in the provision of the services listed on the fee schedule is essential in identifying the total cost of
providing each service. Specifically, in providing services, numerous employees are often involved in various aspects
of the process, spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service.
The principle goal of this study was to identify the cost of City services, to provide information to help the City make
informed decisions regarding the actual fee levels and charges. The responsibility to determine the final fee levels is
a complicated task. City staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must
consider those same issues and more in making the final decisions.
City staff assumes the responsibility to develop specific fee level recommendations to present to the City Council.
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since many of the considerations are based on the
unique characteristics of the City of Encinitas, and administrative and political discretion. However, in setting the
level of full cost recovery for each fee, one should consider whether the service solely benefits one end user or the
general community.
SUBSIDIZATION
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. The general standard is that
individuals (or groups) whom receive a wholly private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In
contrast, services that are simply public benefit should be funded entirely by the general fund’s tax dollars.
Unfortunately, for the decision makers, many services fall into the range between these two extremes (i.e., Library
and Recreation services). The graphic on the following page illustrates the potential decision basis.
Further complicating the decision, opponents of fees often assert that the activities subject to the fees provide
economic, cultural, “quality of life,” or other community benefits that exceed the costs to the City. It is recommended
the City consider such factors during its deliberations regarding appropriate fee levels.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 11
Of course, subsidization can be an
effective public policy tool, since it can
be used to reduce fees to encourage
certain activities (such as compliance
inspections to ensure public safety) or
allow some people to be able to afford to
receive services they otherwise could
not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies
can be an appropriate and justifiable
action, such as to allow citizens to
rightfully access services, without
burdensome costs.
Despite the intent, it is important for the
City and public to understand that
subsidies must be covered by another
revenue source, such as the General
Fund. Therefore, the general taxpayer will potentially help to fund private benefits, and/or other City services will
not receive funds that are otherwise directed to cover subsidies.
IMPACT ON DEMAND (ELASTICITY)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually curtail the
demand for the services; whereas lower fees may spark an incentive to utilize the services and encourage certain
actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would
cause demand changes is largely unknown. The Cost of Service Study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or
behavioral impacts of higher or lower fees; nevertheless, the City should consider the potential impacts of these
issues when deciding on fee levels.
SUMMARY
If the City’s overriding goal of this study were to maximize revenues from user fees, Willdan would recommend
setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in this study. However, we understand that revenue enhancement
is not the only goal of a cost of service study, and sometimes full‐cost recovery is not needed, desired, or appropriate.
Other City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past experience, implementation issues,
and other internal and external factors may influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In this case,
the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and creation of a consistent and
comprehensive fee schedule was the primary objective of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and
identified the recommended fee levels for consideration by City Council. The attached appendices exhibit these unit
fees individually.
The preceding sections provide background for each department or division and the results of this study’s analysis
of their fees. For the full list of each fee’s analysis, refer to Appendix C of this report.
100%
0%
100%
Private
Benefit
Some
Public
Benefit
Some
Private
Benefit
100%
Public
Benefit
User
Fees
General
Fund
(Subsidy)
General
Fund
(Subsidy)General
Fund
(Subsidy)
User
Fees
User
Fees
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 12
BUILDING
Building Services is responsible for plan checking, building permits, and inspection services that are provided under
contract with the EsGil Corporation. Clerical support and coordination of this contract is handled by Planning and
Building personnel.
ANALYSIS
Willdan individually reviewed the services provided by Building Services. The review also consisted of an evaluation
of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
Building services for the City are provided by EsGil Corporation, with fees set per contract. As such the analysis
completed as part of this study was to determine the cost to the City in providing direct and indirect staff and
operational support for those services. The result of that analysis determined that the full cost overhead that should
be applied to consultant provided services is 30%, which is a decrease of 4% from the current 34%. The projected
revenue effect of this change would be a decrease of $61,526 based on FY 2016/17 revenue received.
PLANNING
The Current Planning Services division is responsible for reviewing land use and development applications to ensure
compliance with all General Plan and Local Coastal Program goals and policies, development and use regulations of
the Municipal Code and applicable specific plans, and adherence to design criteria contained in the City’s adopted
Design Review Guidelines. The division also recommends and implements changes to the above. The division
provides staff support to the Planning Commission and oversees the operation of the Staff Advisory Committee,
which meets with prospective applicants on a weekly basis to familiarize them with City standards and provide early
input in the design process. The division also coordinates the City's Mills Act program and serves as the clearinghouse
for all environmental compliance reviews.
ANALYSIS
Willdan individually reviewed the services provided by Planning. The review also consisted of an evaluation of
existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of services in Planning fees relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build‐up approach, whereby we
determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro‐
rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the
calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee would recover
the costs associated with the requested service. It is recommended that the City set fees at the individual cost
recovery levels stated in Appendix C which would result in an average fee increase of 4%. On an individual fee basis,
there would be an increase for 36 fees, 26 fees would remain as currently set, and 1 new fee as detailed in Appendix
C. The projected revenue effect of this change would be an increase of $51,810 based on FY 2016/17 fee activity.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 13
ENGINEERING
The Engineering Division is comprised of four Sections: Capital Improvement, Development Review, Inspections, and
Traffic Engineering. The Capital Improvement Section plans, designs, and administers engineering contracts for City
and subsidiary district capital improvement projects, including those that are State and Federally funded.
Typical City capital improvement projects include street improvements, drainage improvements, sewer
improvements, annual street maintenance programs, fire, facilities, and park and recreation facilities. The
Development Review Section reviews, approves, and permits Grading and Public Improvement plans for private
development. The Section also reviews and issues permits for private construction in the public right‐of‐way,
encroachments in public right‐of‐way, beach encroachments (seawall), news racks, public utility construction, and
outdoor dining. The Section reviews all building permit applications and plans for Engineering‐related concerns, and
calculates and collects permit, plan check, inspection, traffic mitigation, utility undergrounding in‐lieu, and flood
control fees. The Inspections Section is responsible for the enforcement of the City Engineering standards through
inspection to ensure that the vision of the City Council is being met. The City Engineering Inspectors are responsible
for the City’s Engineering Capital Improvement construction, private construction represented by utility permits,
grading and improvement plans and all of the City’s infrastructure installation. The Engineering field inspectors
monitor grading, public improvement, and construction permits, utility permits, encroachment permits, and sewer
construction permits. Further, the Engineering field inspectors conduct routine stormwater compliance inspections
as required by applicable State mandates and local codes. The Traffic Engineering Section is primarily responsible
for implementing policy involving pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic movement. The section responds to
citizen comments and inquiries regarding traffic‐related issues, as well as plans, designs, and implements traffic
control devices. The Traffic Engineering Section provides traffic management services to the traveling public so they
can enjoy a safe and efficient transportation system. To that end, the Section is responsible for the development,
monitoring, and implementation of traffic improvements in the City. The Section provides for the safe movement of
users of the City's circulation system, including vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. This Section also provides staff
support to the Traffic and Public Safety Commission and technical support to the Planning Commission and City
Council as needed.
ANALYSIS
Willdan individually reviewed the services provided by Engineering. The review also consisted of an evaluation of
existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of services in Engineering relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build‐up approach, whereby we
determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro‐
rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the
calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee would recover
the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis revealed that the department is under recovering the
cost for most of these services and it is recommended that the City set Engineering fees at the individual cost
recovery levels stated in Appendix C which would result in an average fee increase of 4%. On an individual fee basis,
there would be an increase for 25 fees, a decrease for 2 fees, 46 fees would remain as currently set, and 1 new fee
as detailed in Appendix C. The projected revenue effect of this change would be an increase of $55,911 based on FY
2016/17 fee activity.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 14
FIRE
The Encinitas Fire Department provides a wide array of public safety services. These services include fire protection,
emergency response, medical aid, fire prevention, disaster preparedness, search and rescue, lifeguard services and
community education programs.
ANALYSIS
Willdan individually reviewed the services provided by Fire. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing
services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of services in Fire relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build‐up approach, whereby we determined
the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro‐rata share of
departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost
against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee would recover the costs associated
with the requested service. It is recommended that the City set fees at the individual cost recovery levels stated in
Appendix C which would result in an average fee increase of 12%. On an individual fee basis, there would be an
increase for 7 fees, a decrease for 5 fees, 18 fees would remain as currently set, and 2 new fees as detailed in
Appendix C. The projected revenue effect of this change would be an increase of $3,411 based on FY 2015/16 fee
activity.
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 15
APPENDIX A – TOTAL ALLOWABLE COST TO BE RECOVERED
Below are the total allowable costs that may be recovered through User Fees; however, only a percentage of the
costs shown are realized as staff not only works on services related to User Fees, but also works on an array of other
City functions during the operational hours of the City.
City of Encinitas‐ User Fee
Overhead Rate Calculations
Department
Salary and
Benefits
Department
Operations &
Administration
Direct
Overhead %
Indirect
Allocation %
101: Engineering $3,053,469 $297,505 9.7% 29.0%
101: Parks Rec $1,774,100 $481,281 27.1% 22.5%
101: Plan Bldg $2,834,493 $425,342 15.0% 24.3%
101: Loss Prevention $483,892 $174,787 36.1% 16.2%
101: Public Works $1,200,319 $803,063 66.9% 28.5%
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 16
APPENDIX B – FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATES
Below are fully burdened hourly rates on an average department scale and at the staff position level for all City
personnel. The FBHRs were used to determine the full cost of each service detailed in Appendix C. They include the
salary and benefit costs for each position as well as all applicable overhead amounts for each position. For positions
in central service departments, such as the City Clerk and Finance, the overhead of central service departments is
not included, as that cost would be recovered through a cost allocation plan, or in the case of this study, a de minimus
allocation rate. For any user fee service request that is outside the scope of the fees detailed in Appendix C, or for
services for which there is no fee currently set up, the City can charge up to the full cost of the FBHR for personnel
involved as well as any material or third party cost required.
City of Encinitas‐ User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Department Rates
101: Engineering $119.15
101: Plan Bldg $113.50
101: Public Works $149.83
101: Loss Prevention $160.63
101: Parks Rec $87.15
Position Rates
101: Engineering 101: Engineering ‐ Department Director $201.32
101: Engineering 101: Engineering ‐ Engineer II $127.78
101: Engineering 101: Engineering ‐ Engineering Specialist I/II $85.42
101: Engineering 101: Engineering ‐ Environmental Project Manager $119.31
101: Engineering 101: Engineering ‐ Program Assistant III $67.06
101: Engineering 101: Engineering ‐ Senior Engineer $146.14
101: Engineering 101: Engineering ‐ Senior Management Analyst $112.24
101: Engineering 101: Engineering ‐ Stormwater Specialist III $93.89
101: Loss Prevention 101: Loss Prevention ‐ Deputy Fire Marshal I $95.40
101: Loss Prevention 101: Loss Prevention ‐ Deputy Fire Marshal II $104.87
101: Loss Prevention 101: Loss Prevention ‐ Fire Marshall $162.56
101: Loss Prevention 101: Loss Prevention ‐ Program Assistant III $74.90
101: Loss Prevention 101: Loss Prevention ‐ Senior Deputy Fire Marshal $119.07
101: Parks Rec 101: Parks Rec ‐ Facility Specialist $80.35
101: Parks Rec 101: Parks Rec ‐ Parks & Beach Supervisor I $93.95
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Administrative Support Coordinator $73.38
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Code Enforcement Manager $113.29
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 17
City of Encinitas‐ User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Code Enforcement Officer III $94.76
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Department Director IV $203.19
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Deputy Director $147.50
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Environmental Project Manager $120.42
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Management Analyst II Housing $94.76
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Management Analyst III $107.59
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Planner IV $101.90
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Principal Planner I $141.80
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Program Assistant III $67.69
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Program Coordinator Housing $73.38
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Senior Planner I $120.42
101: Plan Bldg 101: Plan Bldg ‐ Senior Planner II $128.97
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Deputy City Manager $272.65
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Deputy Director Public Works $204.23
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Engineer I $180.69
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Equipment Mechanic II $110.11
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Facilities Specialist $110.11
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Finance Analyst I $129.36
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Finance Technician II $101.56
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Fleet Maintenance Supervisor $142.19
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ General Manager $257.10
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Management Analyst III $161.44
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Program Assistant II $92.99
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Program Coordinator $110.11
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Senior Engineer $221.32
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Senior Management Analyst $169.99
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Superintendent $193.52
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Utility & Maintenance Specialist I $129.36
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Utility & Maintenance Specialist II $142.19
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Utility & Maintenance Supervisor I $152.89
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Utility & Maintenance Supervisor II $161.44
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Utility & Maintenance Tech I $92.99
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Utility & Maintenance Tech II $101.56
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Utility & Maintenance Tech III $110.11
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Utility & Maintenance Tech IV $118.66
101: Public Works 101: Public Works ‐ Water Conservation Specialist II $129.36
City of Encinitas Comprehensive User Fee Study 18
APPENDIX C – COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS & SUGGESTED FEE LEVELS
The following tables provide the results of the analysis, resulting full cost recovery amount, and recommended fees.
For fees in which the full cost, percent targeted cost recovery level, or percent change is listed as “NA”, the amount
or percentage was not calculable based on cost data or variable fee structure. This is most common when either the
current or the suggested fee includes a variable component that is not comparable on a one to one basis, a full cost
was not calculated (for penalties, fines, and otherwise restricted services), or when there is not a current fee amount
to compare against.
I. Building Department# DescriptionCurrent FeeFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 City Overhead Charge34% of total fees for building permit issuance30% 100%30%‐4.00%NotesIncluding building permit, plan check, electrical, plumbing and all other associated feesAppendix CCity of EncinitasComprehensive User Fee Study19
II. Planning Department# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1Affordable unit Policy990.00$1,323.74 75%$990.00 $0.002 Amendement Authorization by Council550.00$4,075.82 16%$660.00 $110.003 Annexation2,860.00$8,007.51 43%$3,430.00 $570.004 Appeals250.00$4,774.47 6%$300.00 $50.005 Boundary Adjustment/ Cert. of Compliance990.00$1,489.05 70%$1,040.00 $50.006 Building Plan Copy50.00$101.53 59%$60.00 $10.007 Certificate of Compliance630.00$959.17 70%$670.00 $40.008 Coastal Development Permit1,600.00$1,835.26 87%$1,600.00 $0.009 Conceptual Review ‐ Admin/Planning Comm1,200.00$1,655.50 72%$1,200.00 $0.0010 Design Review ‐ Admin Level1,100.00$1,826.40 70%$1,275.00 $175.0011 Design Review ‐ Plan Comm (<2500 sq ft)2,640.00$3,928.96 70%$2,750.00 $110.0012 Design Review ‐ Plan Comm (2501‐10k sq ft)3,600.00$4,599.8278%$3,600.00 $0.0013 Design Review ‐ Plan Comm (>10k sq ft)4,800.00$5,678.99 85%$4,800.00 $0.0014 Design Review Modications ‐ Admin870.00$1,257.54 70%$880.00 $10.0015 Design Review Modications ‐ Plan Comm1,980.00$3,913.93 61%$2,370.00 $390.0016 Major Use Permit6,000.00$7,128.64 84%$6,000.00 $0.0017 Major Use Permit Modifications2,640.00$4,928.67 64%$3,160.00 $520.0018 Minor Use Permit1,760.00$3,118.01 68%$2,110.00 $350.0019 Minor Use Permit Modifications1,320.00$2,596.49 61%$1,580.00 $260.0020 Misc Service Requests140.00$166.38 84%$140.00 $0.0021 Plan Comm or City Council Interpretation1,000.00$1,420.83 70%$1,000.00 $0.0022 Resolution Amendments1,100.00$1,822.70 70%$1,285.00 $185.0023 Resubmittal Fee1/2 original feeNANA1/2 original fee NA24 Sign Program800.00$1,213.30 70%$850.00 $50.0025 Sign Reviw380.00$602.29 70%$420.00 $40.0026 Sign/Banner Permit80.00$187.08 51%$95.00 $15.0027 Substantial Conformance Review280.00$689.61 49%$335.00 $55.0028 Tent Parcel Mapp Appl or Mod (2‐4 lots)3,850.00$6,512.70 70%$4,555.00 $705.0029 Parcel Map Waiver (condo conversion, etc.)1,800.00$2,407.21 75%$1,800.00 $0.0030 Final Parcel Map Check (2‐4 lots)340.00$509.48 70%$355.00 $15.0031 Tentative Subdivision Map$11,000 + $550 per lot in excess of 5 lots$23,246.33 Variable$13,000 + $650 per lot in excess of 5 lotsVariable32Tentative Map Modification10,110.00$12,454.53 81%$10,110.00 $0.0033 Final Subdivision Map Check (5 + lots)500.00$745.69 70%$520.00 $20.0034 Time Extensions880.00$1,452.15 70%$1,015.00 $135.0035 Variance ‐ Administrative1,320.00$2,602.06 61%$1,580.00 $260.0036 Variance ‐ Planning Commission3,520.00$5,443.72 70%$3,810.00 $290.0037 Variance ‐ Planning Commission/sfd1,760.00$2,666.19 70%$1,865.00 $105.0038 Minor Plan Check60.00$101.90 69%$70.00 $10.0039 Commerical Plan Check1,000.00$1,018.95 98%$1,000.00 $0.0040 Single Family Plan Check400.00$509.48 79%$400.00 $0.0041 Duplex Plan Check700.00$815.16 86%$700.00 $0.0042 Multi‐Family (3‐10 units) Plan Check1,000.00$1,120.85 89%$1,000.00 $0.0043 Multi‐Family (11 + units) Plan Check800.00$1,324.6460%$800.00 $0.0044 General Plan Update Fee30.00$318.59 11%$35.00 $5.0045 Environmental Reviw ‐ Exemption60.00$108.38 65%$70.00 $10.00APPLICATION FEESNotesAppendix CCity of EncinitasComprehensive User Fee Study20
II. Planning Department46 Comprehensive Initial Study (in house)4,620.00$7,225.20 70%$5,055.00 $435.0047 Comprehensive Initial Study Contract Admin880.00$1,625.67 65%$1,055.00 $175.0048 EIR's Contract Admin3,740.00$7,799.16 58%$4,485.00 $745.0049 Geotechnical Review Contract Admin660.00$1,480.28 53%$790.00 $130.0050 Geotechnical Letter Report Review Contract Admin60.00$101.90 69%$70.00 $10.0051 Wireless Review Contract Admin280.00$458.53 70%$320.00 $40.0052 Misc. Technical Studies Contract Admin550.00$1,083.78 61%$660.00 $110.0053 Agricultural Permit 250.00$3,118.01 8%$250.00 $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 General Plan Admendment (no vote req)13,000.00 DepositVariable 0%$13,000.00 $0.002 General Plan Admendment (vote req)20,000.00DepositVariable 0%$20,000.00 $0.003 Zoning Code Admendments20,000.00 DepositVariable 0%$20,000.00 $0.004 Specific Plan30,000.00 DepositVariable 0%$30,000.00 $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Enviro. Review Consultant DepositTBDVariable 0%TBD $0.002 Geotechnical Consultant Deposit850.00Variable 0%$850.00 $0.003 Wireless Consultant Deposit1,900.00Variable 0%$1,900.00 $0.004 Misc Tech Studies Consultant DepositTBDVariable 0%TBD $0.005 Geotechnical Letter Report Review200.00$200.00 100%$200.00 $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Staff Advisory Committee MeetingsNew$811.05 70%$565.00 NAMiscelaneousNotesCONSULTANT DEPOSITSNotesNotesStaff Time and City costs including 50% overhead will be charged forll deposit applicationsStaff Time and City costs including 50% overhead will be charged forll deposit applicationsStaff Time and City costs including 50% overhead will be charged forll deposit applicationsStaff Time and City costs including 50% overhead will be charged forll deposit applicationsAPPLICATION DEPOSITSAppendix CCity of EncinitasComprehensive User Fee Study21
III. EngineeringGRADING PERMIT PROCESSING # Description Current Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Plan Check1,600.00 Per Sheet$2,496.24 70%$1,747.00 $147.002 Erosion Control Plan Check190.00 Per Sheet$266.22 71%$190.00 $0.003 Simplified Grading1,980.00$3,486.57 68%$2,376.00 $396.004 Grading ‐ Constr Chgs New Sheet1,450.00 Per Sheet$2,292.45 70%$1,604.00 $154.005 Construction Change Minor220.00Over the Counter$281.62 78%$220.00 $0.006 Construction Change Major390.00Submitted for Plan Check$706.58 70%$468.00 $78.007 Inspection ‐ Approved Cost Estimate ≤ $100,000 5% of ACEVariable 0%5% of ACE $0.008 Inspection ‐ Approved Cost Estimate ≥ $100,001$5000 plus 3% of ACE over $100KVariable 0%$5000 plus 3% of ACE over $100K$0.00# Description Current Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Plan Check1,870.00 Per Sheet$3,186.34 70%$2,230.00 $360.002 Construction Change Minor220.00$281.62 78%$220.00 $0.003 Construction Change Major390.00$706.58 70%$468.00 $78.004 Construction Change New Sheet1,870.00 Per Sheet$2,292.45 82%$1,870.00 $0.005 Inspection ‐ Approved Cost Estimate ≤ $100,000 5% of ACEVariable 0%5% of ACE $0.006 Inspection ‐ Approved Cost Estimate ≥ $100,001$5000 plus 3% of ACE over $100KVariable 0%$5000 plus 3% of ACE over $100K$0.00# Description Current Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Sewer Lateral Construction Permit440.00$579.45 76%$440.00 $0.002 Public Sewer Inspection ‐ Approved Cost Estimate ≤ $100,0005% of ACEVariable 0%5% of ACE $0.003 Public Sewer Inspection ‐ Approved Cost Estimate ≥ $100,001$5000 plus 3% of ACE over $100KVariable 0%$5000 plus 3% of ACE over $100K$0.004 Wastewater Discharge Permit Processing Fee40.00$67.59 70%$47.00 $7.005 Sewer Reimbursement District ‐ Establishment Fee3,050.00$4,002.19 76%$3,050.00 $0.00TRAFFIC# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Traffic Control250.00$341.66 73%$250.00 $0.002 Traffic Control ‐ Minor60.00$71.18 84%$60.00 $0.003 Transporation PermitNo Fee$170.83 0%No Fee $0.004 Haul Route PermitNo Fee$85.42 0%No Fee $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1.a Residential 0‐500 SF170.00$430.99 47%$204.00 $34.001.b Residential 500‐2000 SF280.00$501.56 67%$336.00 $56.001.c Residential 2000‐5000 SF500.00$715.1070%$500.00 $0.001.d Residential > 5000 SF660.00$971.35 70%$679.00 $19.002.a Commercial 0‐500 SF170.00$410.14 50%$204.00 $34.002.b Commercial 500‐2000 SF280.00$580.98 58%$336.00 $56.002.c Commercial 2000‐10000 SF610.00$774.63 79%$610.00 $0.00BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECKNotesNotesNotesNotesSubmitted for Plan CheckPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROCESSINGNotesOver the CounterSEWER CONSTRUCTIONAppendix CCity of EncinitasComprehensive User Fee Study22
III. Engineering2.d Commercial > 10000 SF830.00$1,087.83 76%$830.00 $0.003 Commerical Remodel, Tenant Improvement300.00$414.51 72%$300.00 $0.004 Pool, Spa250.00$268.31 93%$250.00 $0.005 Demo Building Permit80.00$121.01 69%$84.00 $4.006 Misc. Building Permit30.00$42.71 70%$30.00 $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Final Map Processing ‐ Major Subdivision Map1,760.00 Per Sheet$2,666.95 70%$1,866.00 $106.002 Final Map Processing ‐ Minor Subdivision Map2,000.00 Per Sheet$2,666.95 75%$2,000.00 $0.003 Certificate of Correction120.00$164.43 73%$120.00 $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Plan Check Public290.00$540.7664%$348.00$58.002 Plan Check Private140.00$455.34 37%$168.00 $28.003 Urban Forest Management Permit610.00$2,292.45 32%$732.00 $122.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Plan Check140.00 Per Sheet$1,017.11 17%$168.00 $28.002 Inspection ‐ Approved Cost Estimate ≤ $100,0001% of ACEVariable 0%1% of ACE $0.003 Inspection ‐ Approved Cost Estimate ≥ $100,001$1000 plus 0.6% of ACE over $100KVariable 0%$1000 plus 0.6% of ACE over $100K$0.004 SWPPP830.00$1,107.69 75% $830.00 $0.005 Storm Water Control Simulation Model Revision ‐ Minor1,160.00$2,464.36 56%$1,392.00 $232.006 Storm Water Control Simulation Model Revision ‐ Major2,330.00$2,641.10 88%$2,330.00 $0.007 FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision1,390.00$1,812.25 77%$1,390.00 $0.008 FEMA Letter of Map Revision460.00$596.55 77%$460.00 $0.009 FEMA Letter of Map Revision/Elevation Certificate460.00$596.55 77%$460.00 $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Utility Construction Permit ‐ Trenching < 200 LF280.00$341.66 82%$280.00 $0.002 Major Utility ‐ Trenching ≤ $100,0005% of ACEVariable 0% 5% of ACE $0.003 Major Utility ‐ Trenching ≥ $100,001$5000 plus 3% of ACE over $100KVariable 0%$5000 plus 3% of ACE over $100K$0.004 Inspection Fee for Utility Construction ‐ Trenching ≥ 200 LF5% of ACEVariable 0%5% of ACE $0.005 Right of Way Minor330.00$390.38 85%$330.00 $0.006 Right of Way Major900.00$890.69 100%$890.00‐$10.007 Inspection Fee for Right Of Way Minor Permit5% of ACEVariable 0%5% of ACE $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Beach Encroachment1,520.00$2,181.39 70%$1,526.00 $6.002 Beach Encroachment Security Deposit 5% of ACEVariable 0%5% of ACE$0.003Permanent Encroachment Permit320.00$565.32 68%$384.00 $64.00Not Associated with Single Family Dwelling or more than one trench; and/or ACE >$10KTrenching ≥200 LFVARIOUS ENCROACHMENT PERMITSNotesPer Attachement E, Policy No. CS P005MAP AND PARCEL MAP PROCESSINGNotesAssociated with Single Family DwellingLANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATIONUTILITY AND RIGHT‐OF‐WAY CONSTRUCTIONNotesNotesNPDES AND FLOOD CONTROLNotesAppendix CCity of EncinitasComprehensive User Fee Study23
III. Engineering4 Permanent Encroachment Permit with Construction500.00$715.58 70%$500.00 $0.005 Temporary Encroachment Permit170.00$256.25 70%$179.00 $9.006 Newsrack Operations Permit290.00$54.89 98%$54.00‐$236.007 Sidewalk Cafe240.00$434.98 66%$288.00 $48.008 Sidewalk Café Renewal90.00$132.24 70%$92.00 $2.009 Sidewalk Café Renewal with Violation170.00$221.78 77%$170.00 $0.00# DescriptionCurrent Fee UnitFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 GIS Map Fee410.00$512.50 80%$410.00 $0.002 Structural Review ‐ Outside ReviewDepositVariable 0%Deposit $0.003 Structural Review ‐ New Sheet260.00$436.60 70%$305.00 $45.004 Street Name Change Application3,740.00$4,334.73 86%$3,740.00 $0.005 Street Vacation Application3,610.00$4,393.91 82%$3,610.00 $0.006 Tree Removal Permit610.00$807.43 76%$610.00 $0.007Misc Engineering Approval30.00$34.17 88%$30.00 $0.008 Generic Survey ReviewNew$191.68 100%$191.00 NAAdditional security deposit may be required at the discretion of the City ManagerMISCELLANEOUSNotesUpdate of GIS Database; (Bond and Fee Letter)Appendix CCity of EncinitasComprehensive User Fee Study24
IV. Fire DepartmentPREVENTION FEES# Description Current FeeFull CostCost Recovery %Suggested FeeFee Δ1 Fixed Fire Extinguishing System300.00$321.27 93%$300.00 $0.002 Comm Bldg Plan Check220.00$282.58 78%$220.00 $0.003 Comm Bldg Inspection150.00$160.63 93%$150.00 $0.004 Comm Sprinklered Plan Check ‐ TI's only140.00$202.27 70%$141.00 $1.005 Comm Sprinklered Inspection ‐ TI's only160.00$225.31 71%$160.00 $0.006 Comm Sprinklered Inspection ‐ New only290.00$385.95 75%$290.00 $0.007 Resi Sprinkler Plan Chk & Insp (0‐2500 sq ft)300.00$434.50 70%$304.00 $4.008 Resi Sprinkler Plan Chk & Insp (2501‐5000 sq ft)350.00$554.9770%$388.00 $38.009 Resi Sprinkler Plan Chk & Insp (5001‐7000 sq ft)450.00$635.29 71%$450.00 $0.0010 Resi Sprinkler Plan Chk & Insp (7001‐10000 sq ft)550.00$675.45 81%$550.00 $0.0011 Resi Sprinkler Plan Chk & Insp (over 10000 sq ft)700.00$795.92 88%$700.00 $0.0012 Resi Sprinkler Inspection Only (0‐2500 sq ft)200.00$240.95 83%$200.00 $0.0013 Resi Sprinkler Inspection Only (2501‐5000 sq ft)250.00$321.27 78%$250.00 $0.0014 Resi Sprinkler Inspection Only (5001‐7000 sq ft)300.00$361.4383%$300.00 $0.0015 Resi Sprinkler Inspection Only (7001‐10000 sq ft)350.00$401.59 87%$350.00 $0.0016 Resi Sprinkler Inspection Only (over 10000 sq ft)400.00$481.90 83%$400.00 $0.0017 Inspection Only Fee230.00$160.63 100%$160.00‐$70.0018 Re‐Inspection Fee180.00$160.63 100%$160.00‐$20.0019 Update Fire Response Maps200.00NA NA$200.00 $0.0020 Fuel Management Planning0.00$0.00 NA$0.00 $0.0021 Contract Admin ‐ Fire Protection Systems0.00$0.00 NA$0.00 $0.0022 Alarm System Plan Check200.00$160.63 100%$160.00‐$40.0023 Alarm System Inspection400.00$361.43 100%$361.00‐$39.0024 Resi Bldg Plan Check50.00$120.48 50%$60.00 $10.0025 Resi Bldg Inspection50.00$120.48 50%$60.00 $10.0026 Annual Special Occupancy Inspections0.00$0.00NA$0.00 $0.0027 Sprinkler Monitoring Plan Check100.00$120.48 83%$100.00 $0.0028 Sprinkler Monitoring Inspection220.00$160.63 100%$160.00‐$60.0029 Minimum Plan Check Fee ‐ Bldg Plans50.00$120.48 50%$60.00 $10.0030 Tent/Canopy Application30.00$80.32 45%$36.00 $6.00Appendix CCity of EncinitasComprehensive User Fee Study25
IV. Fire Department31 Alternative Means & Methods Review (Up to 2 hour review)New$321.27 70%$224.00 NA32 Alternative Means & Methods Review (add't hourly time)New$160.63 70%$112.00 NAAppendix CCity of EncinitasComprehensive User Fee Study26