HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2014-02-10 #J AGENDA STAFF REPORT
F
•gLIFORN�Pf`
DATE: February 10, 2014
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Jim Basham, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: BUILDING DIVISION FEE STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council reviews the Building Division Fee Study Report and direct
staff to schedule a public hearing to consider amending the City's fee schedule in
accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
At the November 12, 2013 City Council meeting, staff conducted a workshop
regarding a comparison of the Building Division's permit fees to similar fees of
other neighboring cities. Staff said at that time, that it would return to the City
Council to report once a full study was completed.
The Building Division Fee Study Report ("Report") was completed by Traw
Associates Consulting and is now presented to the City Council for its
consideration.
Based upon the data collected, the City's fees for the Building Division fall within
the range of the average of the cities reviewed. However, there are fees in the
current schedule that could be reduced and/ replaced or supplemented by flat fee
rates for items such as residential solar-tube installations, window retrofits, and
water heater replacements. The Report, therefore, recommends several short
and long term changes to the Building Division's Fees in the City's 2013-2014
Fee Schedule.
If the City Council agrees with the recommendations, staff will schedule a public
hearing for the Council to consider amendments to the Fee Schedule in
accordance with the Report's recommendations.
Agenda Item
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact related to this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact related to considering the Report and scheduling a
public hearing. If the Council was to ultimately amend the Fee Schedule in
accordance with the Report's recommendation and building activity this year,
there could be a reduction in the amount of fees generated for the remainder of
this fiscal year. The amount of the reduction is unknown at this time. When the
Budget is completed for FY 2014-15, however, the fee changes would be used to
calculate the anticipated revenue and the impact of the fee changes would be
reflected in the Budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council review the Building Division Fee Study Report and direct
staff to schedule a public hearing to consider amending the City's fee schedule in
accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report.
U UBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
JirAasham, ill Ingram, City a ager
Director of Community Development
Prepared by: Jon Traw, Building Official
Attachment:
A. Building Division Fee Study Report
Page 2
•F•SEAt
'`•q�IFORN\
City of Seal Beach
Building Division
Fee Study Report
January 30, 2014
by
Traw Associates Consulting
15255 Carretera Drive
Whittier, California 90605
REPORT INDEX
1.0 Executive Summary
2.0 Introduction
3.0 Analysis Methodology
3.1 General
3.2 Data Collection
3.3 Comparative Compilation of Data
3.4 Evaluation of Compiled Data
3.4.1 Construction Valuation Table
3.4.2 Building Permit Comparison
3.4.3 Plan Review Fee Comparison
3.4.4 Total Fee Comparison
3.4.5 Trade Permit Fee Comparison
3.4.6 Administrative Fee Comparison
3.5 Review of Other Fees
3.6 Determination of Final Recommendations
4.0 Recommendations
5.0 Acknowledgements
6.0 References
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A- Construction Valuation Table Sample
Exhibit B - Building Permit Fee Schedule Sample
Exhibit C -Construction Valuation Table-Current City of Seal Beach
Exhibit -Construction Valuation Table-Recommended Example
Exhibit E - Building Permit Fee($1,000 to$10,000)
Exhibit F - Building Permit Fee($20,000 to$100,000)
Exhibit G - Building Permit Fee($500,000 and$1,000,000)
Exhibit H - Plan Review Fee($1,000 to$10,000)
Exhibit I - Plan Review Fee($20,000 to$100,000)
Exhibit J - Plan Review Fee($500,000 and$1,000,000)
Exhibit K- Total Plan Review and Building Permit Fee ($1,000 to$10,000)
Exhibit L - Total Plan Review and Building Permit Fee($20,000 to$100,000)
Exhibit M - Total Plan Review and Building Permit Fee ($500,000 and$1,000,000)
Exhibit N - Fee Schedule Recommended Changes
2
1.0 Executive Summary
This report is the result of a review of the City of Seal Beach's building Division
fees when compared with the fee schedules of nine jurisdictions include
Huntington Beach, Cypress, Cerritos, Hermosa Beach, Lakewood, Long Beach,
Los Alamitos, Palos Verdes Estates and the County of Los Angeles. The reason
for including the County of Los Angeles was the fact that there are several
jurisdictions that contract with the County of Los Angeles for building and safety
permitting and inspections. Data from Manhattan Beach was obtained but only
later in the work effort and thus only consider for purposes of further validation of
findings and recommendations.
After compilation and comparative analysis of the data, the recommendations for
changes are as follows:
Short Term Recommendations
1. The fee for issuance of construction permits is recommended to be
changed from $70 to $40.
2. The General Plan Update fee is recommended to be changed from 2% of
construction valuation to .2% of construction valuation.
3. The fees for Construction Waste Recycling for re-roofing permits be
amended to be consistent with the covered project criteria contained in the
City of Seal Beach's Municipal Code Section 9.65.
4. The construction valuation data table should be updated on a yearly basis
to be consistent with published national data such as the tables
periodically produced by the International Code Council (ICC) or the
County of Los Angeles.
5. A flat fee program should be established for water heater replacement,
retrofit window change-outs and sola-tube permits secured by state
licensed contractors. Such flat fee is recommended to be set at $25.
6. The basis for the General Plan Update Fee should be based on the
Construction Permit Fee rather than the Construction Valuation.
7. The basis for the Archival Fee should be examined to determine
whether the fee should be based on the Construction Permit Fee
rather than the Construction Valuation
3
Long- Term Recommendations
1. As part of the budgeting process, fee adjustments should be considered
on the basis of multiple fiscal year revenue versus cost considerations.
2. Consideration be given to instituting a surcharge fee for all permits and
such fees be utilized for the sole purpose of automating the city's permitting and
inspections activities. Such automation should consider the ability to secure and
pay for permits on-line as well as allowing public records to be reviewed via city
website access.
3. Examine the possibility of handling additional flat fee permits for items
other than those recommended in the short term recommendations.
Attached as Exhibit N are the short term recommendations noted by crossed-out
and underlined text noted in the current adopted fee schedule.
2.0 Introduction
The question of whether a city has established an appropriate level of fees for
work performed is one which is quite often raised by those paying the fees. The
fees charged by a city for construction permitting services are often criticized as
being excessive and/or out of sync with surrounding cities and counties. In order
to respond to such potential criticisms, cities may periodically conduct a study
which compares their city's fee structure with other surrounding jurisdictions to
ensure the fees are commensurate with the level of services provided and
competitively positioned to service both existing and new development. The
purpose of this study was to compile up-to-date comparative information relative
to City of Seal Beach's Building Division fees with an appropriate number of other
jurisdictional authorities and thereby identify items within the current fee schedule
that warrant a recommendation for change.
The fundamental methodology by which jurisdiction establish their fees for
construction related activities is the most important issue to first be examined.
Without question, deliberations and decisions relative to the setting of fees is the
ability to ultimately achieve a balanced budget. Generally, the goal is to set fees
at an appropriate level to offset the cost associated with providing the service.
The difficulty with establishing fees for construction permits is the result of being
able to accurately predict what level of construction activity is likely to be
experienced over a future budgetary period. The extreme economic fluctuations
over the past two decades have clearly illustrated this point. In addition, fees
collected to offset building division activities do not always conform to a typical
fiscal year period. Fees charged during the end of one fiscal year may in fact not
be expended until a subsequent fiscal year due purely to the nature of
construction extending over many months and in some case for large projects,
several years. There are methods to account for this in the budgeting process
once this factor is acknowledged.
4
In practice, there are two methodologies used by jurisdictions to set their
overall fee schedules; 1) individual project cost recording with associated
fees to offset costs, 2) overall revenues versus cost of services. With but
a few exceptions, say less than one-half of one percent, jurisdictions use
the overall revenue versus cost of service methodology to set their
building permitting and inspection fees. For a complete and
comprehensive discussion of these two methodologies, one should
consult the publication, "Establishing Building Permit Fees" . For the
purpose of this study, only the major elements of the overall revenues
versus cost of service will be presented.
REVENUE VERSUS COST METHODOLGY
The revenue versus cost methodology is typically integrated into the
normal fiscal year budgeting process. A projection of the revenues to be
received in specific fiscal year are estimated and the associated costs for
providing the services are calculated with the ultimate goal of achieving a
balance at the end of the fiscal year. The one challenge associated with
this methodology as pointed out above is a portion of the revenues
received at the end of one fiscal year need to be dedicated to costs
expended in a subsequent fiscal year. This challenge can be addressed
by due consideration of revenues and costs over several fiscal years such
that one can clearly make a case that an overall budgetary balance has
been achieved over a number of fiscal periods as compared to only one
fiscal period. This approach recognizes that there may well be a portion
of the revenues from one fiscal year that need to be considered as a
carry-over to the next fiscal year in order to offset the costs experienced in
a subsequent fiscal year. In addition, this allows adjustments in fee
schedules to be made less often than would otherwise be considered
necessary to comply with state legal requirements for the setting of
permitting and plan review fees.
Court decisions related to legal challenges to permitting fees have in fact
validated the multiple fiscal year revenue versus cost approach to setting
fees as being both reasonable and defensible.
This methodology for computing fees has several major elements that
result in a fairly straightforward procedure for calculating fees and
generally conforms to the following diagrammatic process flow.
5
CONSTRUCTION VALUATION
METHODOLOGY
Step I I Construction Valuation Determined
I
Step 2 Building Permit Fee Calculated
Step 3 Plan Review Fee Calculated
The determining of fees for a new building starts with Step 1, the
calculation of a building construction valuation. All jurisdictions use tables
containing construction costs per square foot based on the particular use
of the building and the materials used in the construction. For example, a
general office building constructed of wood frame would cost less to build
than the same general office building constructed of reinforced concrete.
Similarly, the cost to construct a retail sales building would be expected to
cost more than a building used as a warehouse.
Once a construction valuation has been determined, Step 2 is the
computation of a building permit fee based on the valuation thus
determined. While there is some variation if the building permit fee
assigned to a particular construction valuation, the method of computation
of the building permit is essentially the same amongst all jurisdictions.
The building permit fee is thus driven by two factors, the construction
valuation and the building permit fee amount assigned to a particular
valuation. A portion of a sample construction valuation table is included
as Exhibit A and a sample building permit fee schedule is included as
Exhibit B.
Step 3 is the calculation of the plan review fee which is most typically
established as a set percentage of the building permit fee. The building
permit and plan review fee thus would result in what would be called the
total building fees exclusive of course from any other established city or
other agency fees. Some of these other fees will be discussed further in
Section 3.5 of the report.
Building Permit Fee
Plan Review Fee
I
F—Total Fee
6
Understanding how the building permit fees are typically calculated helps
to explain why building permit fees might vary from time to time purely
based on the fact that the construction valuation tables used by
jurisdictions are or are not kept current. While -this was not the case in the
jurisdictions surveyed as part of this project, data available from other
sources show that construction valuation tables for some jurisdictions
have not been updated for five to ten years. Thus, comparisons done in
different years may result in showing that a particular jurisdiction is the
most expensive in one year and lower than the others in another year.
The purpose of going through this rather detailed explanation is to
illustrate how conclusions from the data need to be carefully formulated so
as to not take specific actions which seem reasonable now but
questionable later.
The recommendations contained in this report are based on data
collected in -the last quarter of 2013.
3.0 Analysis Methodology
3.1 General
The methodology used to analyze the Building Division fee schedule
included the following important steps.
• Data Collection
• Comparative Compilation of Data
• Evaluation of Compiled Data
• Consideration of Alternative Methods for Establishing Fees
• Determination of Final Recommendations
3.2 Data Collection
For the purpose of data collection, jurisdictions in close proximity and/or
similar characteristics with that of the City of Seal Beach were selected.
For this fee study, the fee structure and schedules were collected from
nine jurisdictions include Huntington Beach, Cypress, Cerritos, Hermosa
Beach, Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Palos Verdes Estates and
the County of Los Angeles. Data from an additional fifteen jurisdictions
used in a fee comparison study for an inland city in the County of Los
Angeles was reviewed but only for the purpose of determining that a
sampling of data from just the selected nine jurisdictions was deemed to
be a sufficiently representative sampling.
The data collection phase of the project took longer than anticipated and
certainly brought into focus a serious question as to data being readily
available either on their websites or within their city offices. This does
raise the question of how readily accessible fee data should be both the
general public and the construction and design community. Current
7
technology allows a city to provide much higher levels of service and
information often without any real increase in direct staff time.
While the primary focus was the collection of fee information directly
related to the building permitting project fees, the data provided by
jurisdictions included a number of other miscellaneous fees that can and
will be compared such as general plan update and record imaging fees.
3.3 Comparative Compilation of Data
For the purpose of ensuring an ease in data evaluation, the data was
compiled into individual excel worksheets according to the fee type and
category. The worksheets include the following:
1. Construction Valuation Determination
2. Building Permit Fee Tabulation
3. Plan Review Fee Tabulation
4. Trade Permit Fee Tabulations
5. Administrative Fee Tabulations
6. Other Fee Tabulations (See Section 3.5)
3.4 Evaluation of Compiled Data
The evaluation of the compiled data was divided into six distinct sections.
1. Construction Valuation Table
2. Building Permit Comparison
3. Plan Review Fee Comparison
4. Total Fee Comparison
5. Trade Permit Fee Comparison
6. Administrative Fee Comparison
3.4.1 Construction Valuation Table
The use of a construction valuation table to establish an estimated cost for
a proposed project was consistent throughout all the jurisdictions
surveyed. The currency of the tables being used had some level of
variability which was attributed to the differing times in which jurisdictions
updated the tabulated information. In addition, the approach to how the
tabulations are presented and the level of detail contained therein have
recently come into focus in discussions amongst Building Officials in
Southern California. A relatively recent change in the construction
valuation tables has rendered there usability to be less accurate in
estimating the cost for a particular project. This is best illustrated by a
comparison of the two different types of construction valuation tables.
8
The first is the most recent form of tabulation. An example is contained in
Exhibit A. The table lists the various types of occupancy groupings
according to the building codes. For example, a Group B occupancy
grouping includes all types of businesses that could range from medical
offices to real estate offices. Likewise, the Group M occupancy grouping
includes all types of mercantile uses ranging from a home supply
warehouses to an upscale clothing stores. Therein lies the difficulty
because the construction cost between the above two examples can vary
significantly. The recent forms of construction valuation can and will result
in both under and over estimates of the valuation and thus directly affect
the amount of permitting fees to be paid.
Now compare the tabulation in Exhibit A to those in Exhibit D where there
is a much better distinction made between various uses thus potentially
rendering a more accurate estimate of the construction valuation for a
project. It is of interest to note that the County of Los Angeles has not
chosen to utilize the more recent form of construction cost factors but
rather has stayed with updating there tabulations based on the more
distinct separation of uses.
The construction valuation table currently used by the City of Seal Beach
is contained in Exhibit C which is virtually identical to that shown in Exhibit
A. This has sometimes resulted in permit applicants expressing concern
that their project estimated construction costs are being over-estimated.
A recommendation is being advanced to use nationally recognized data
and suggests either of the two forms or combination thereof can be
utilized to better estimate project construction costs. This approach would
hopefully minimize the number of complaints by allowing the use of more
definitive tabulations where appropriate.
3.4.2 Building Permit Comparison
The data collected thus far has been tabulated in a manner that allows the
best direct comparisons of the individual fees as well as total project fees.
"fhe individual fee schedules for the jurisdictions are not exactly identical
and thus some level of judgment was necessary to ensure reasonable
conclusions could be assimilated. The major fee calculations for items
such as building permits and plan review fees are done rather consistently
although several of the jurisdictions divide their plan review fees into a
base fee plus add-on fees for additional parts such as energy,
accessibility and green code compliance reviews. These are often not
obvious in their fee schedules and make of task of data assembly more
cumbersome and time consuming. Care was exercised to ensure that
accurate comparison could be made and reasonable recommendations
advanced.
9
For the purpose of best illustrating the data graphically, bar charts were
created. This provides a better overall picture of where the City of Seal
Beach's various fees rank among the other jurisdictions surveyed.
Placing all the data into one bar chart makes the visual presentation
cumbersome as well as making some of the important conclusions less
obvious. The range of construction valuation captured varied from $1,000
to $1,000,000. The charts have been separated into three ranges
including; 1) $1,000 to $10,000, 2) $20,000 to $100,000, and 3) $500,000
to $1,000,000. The bar charts are attached as Exhibits E, F and G.
From the bar charts it is evident that at first glance, the building permit
fees for construction valuations of $10,000 and less, Seal Beach is one of
the highest by comparison. For valuation from $20,000 and greater, Seal
Beach is close to could be termed the middle of the grouping. Thus,
some preliminary conclusions might be drawn that for smaller construction
projects, the City of Seal Beach is in the higher level of fees by
comparison. When one considers the actual cost of construction today,
only certain types of small projects would fall into this range of
construction valuation. Water heater installations, window retrofits of only
a small number of windows, very minor remodels, sola-tubes and similar
types of projects.
Some of these are addressed later through a recommendation for flat fee
permits although not all would be thus addressed. There is a definite
temptation to lower the fees for these projects of about $10,000 or less
but consideration of the cost expended by the city in performing one or
more inspections for the smaller projects needs to be exercised. The cost
associated with performing required inspections must enter into the
deliberation of how to appropriately set the fee. Failure to recoup the
costs for the smaller projects can either place a need to have higher fees
for larger projects to supplement the revenue or a policy decision to keep
the fees lower and draw from the general fund to offset the shortfall. In
looking at the fee comparisons for larger valuation projects in other
jurisdictions, it appears that higher fees at the upper levels of construction
valuation are probably offsetting any revenue impact.
3.4.3 Plan Review Fee Comparison
In the same manner as the presentation for the building permit fees, the
plan review fees have be placed in bar charts and separated into same
three ranges. These are presented in Exhibits H, I and J. In the case of
plan review fees, the City of Seal Beach ranks as one of the lowest.
3.4.4 Total Fee Comparison
The comparison of total fees is simply the totaling of the plan review and
building permit fees. The purpose of providing this comparison is to
ensure that when evaluating where the City of Seal Beach ranks amongst
other jurisdictions, the true fundamental basic total costs has been
10
included. These total fee comparisons do not however capture possible
jurisdictional fee differences resulting from other fees such as permit
issuance, general plan update, developmental impact fees and fees of a
similar nature. Those differences need to be examined separately and
with the exception of the permit issuance and general plan update fee are
beyond the scope of this study.
Like the building permit and plan review fee comparisons, these are
presented in the three Exhibits K, L and M. Of interest here is the fact that
the City of Seal Beach's total review fees (building permit plus plan
review) are very much amongst the lowest. Thus, any recommendations
for changes in the building permit or plan review fees are focused on the
minor construction valuation projects and projects for which a flat fee
approach is the most appropriate.
3.4.5 Trade Permit Fee Comparison
A comparison of the mechanical, plumbing and electrical trade permit fee
schedules of the surveyed jurisdiction did not reveal any obvious major
discrepancies for which any resulting recommendations should be
advanced.
3.4.6 Administrative Fee Comparison
The primary administrative fee examined in the comparative data was the
fee charged for the issuance of individual building permits. Most of the
administrative fees associated with building permits are those that are
state mandated such as the Seismic Motion Instrumentation Program
(SMIP) fee and these are not able to be changed at a local level.
The comparison of the permit issuance fees charged by jurisdiction reveal
that the amount of the fee is quite varied as illustrated in the following
comparative plot.
Plot
$80.00 -
$70.00 -
$60.00 -
$50.00 - .........
$40.00 -
$30.00 -
$20.00
$10
$.00 Plot
- L I 1 -. 1 1� -.1 -
cr o,;, 'n 'n Z� -\- " e, -,A
e 4 00 'ZP -,--0 P
&
The average of the fees charged is a little over $36, with a high of $70 and
a low of $23.50. The best basis for establishing a reasonable permit
issuance fee is through a determination of -the average cost associated
with the activity. The amount of time spent handling the adrninistrative
elements times the fully burden employee rate will generally result in
setting an appropriate fee. Based on a review of the estimated average
time currently spent by city staff, a permit issuance fee of $40 is
recommended for consideration.
3.5 Review of Other Fees
In the process of gathering the data from other jurisdictions, fees other
than those building permitting and plan review fees were provided. These
included the fees charge for the General Plan Update, Plan Archival and
Construction Waste Recycling. While technically beyond the scope of the
contract for the fee study, the information was reviewed for comparison
with the similar fees charged by the City of Seal Beach. The data was
brought to the attention of the Director of Community Development, Mr.
Basham and as a result, this report does contain recommendations for
revisions to both of the above fees. While these are technical classified as
other fees, these fees are charged as part of the overall fees for
construction permits and can have a significant impact on the amount of
total fees charged to citizens and business pursing building construction.
A discussion of these three fees is contained herein.
General Plan Update Fee
This is a fee levied on all construction permits for-the purpose of providing
funding to support the periodic updating of the overall City of Seal Beach
General Plan. Currently, this fee is set at 2% of the construction valuation.
The two most prominent approaches are a percentage of the construction
valuation or a percentage of the building permit fee. From the data
gathered in this study, only three jurisdictions provided information for a
general plan update fee. Two used a percentage of the building permit
fee and varied from 3-6.5 percent. The remaining jurisdiction uses
valuation but only charges for projects with a construction valuation of
$100,000 or more and the set fee is $3/$1,000.
A review of other available data from nineteen different jurisdictions did
confirm that Seal Beach was not alone is basing the charge on
construction valuation. The one noticeable difference was the rate. The
typical percentage is .2%.which is much lower than the 2% charged by the
City of Seal Beach. As a result of discussions with the Director of
Community Development, it would be appropriate to adjust this
percentage to be consistent with other jurisdictions.
12
Plan Archival Fee
The plan archival fee charged by the City of Seal Beach currently based
on construction valuation and the rate is set at 0.002%. This is not
inconsistent with other jurisdictions who use construction valuation as the
basis, however more study of whether basing the fee on the permit fee
rather than construction valuation should be considered. The archival of
public records is mandatory and reflected in the City of Seal Beach's
Record Retention Policy so a fee does need to be assessed to offset the
cost but a more in depth financial implications evaluation needs to be
considered before advancing a change in the current fee.
Construction Waste Recycling Fee
The fee charge for Construction Waste Recycling is currently set as
follows by Subsection G of Section 2 Building Fees in the fee schedule.
G. Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste Program
1. Administrative fee................................... $0.05 sq. ft. of Covered Project
2. Fee deposit................................................. $1 sq. ft. of Covered Project
3. Residential re-roof permits (only) fee deposit.................................. $500
4. Administrative fee for residential re-roof permits.... ........... ................ $40
The data available for comparison of the Construction Waste Recycling
fee with other jurisdiction was very limited, however based on experiences
with applicants who have secured permits over the past six months, there
are some potential adjustments that should be considered. These
adjustments relate only to the fact that the fee schedule does not currently
reflect the actual wording contained in the municipal code. The municipal
code only technically requires the recycling and diversion when a project
exceeds a certain level of work as follows:
§ 9.65.015 Thresholds for Covered Projects.
A. Covered Project. shall mean any of the following projects:
1. Additions of 1,000 square feet or more of gross floor area;
2. Tenant improvements of 1,000 square feet or more of gross
floor area;
3. New structures of 1,000 square feet or more of gross floor
area;and
4. Demolition of 1,000 square feet or more of gross floor area.
Based on the municipal code wording, it would appear appropriate to
clearly state the thresholds in the fee schedule as part of Item G for
residential roofing permits. Currently, a residential re-roof applicant must
pay the stated fee regardless of the amount of re-roof being done. Many
re-roofing jobs are repairs and do not entail roof areas of 1,000 square
feet or more and thus the requirement for a deposit and administrative fee
discourages contractors and owners from obtaining the proper permits
and inspections.
13
3.6 Determination of Final Recommendations
After reviewing the comparative data plots, and examining the potential
implications of recommended changes to the adopted fee schedule, the
final conclusion was that recommendations for changes should be divided
into two groups. The first is a series of recommendations that are most
appropriately addressed in the short term. Based on the comparative
data, these short term recommendations are what one might consider as
the most obvious fees which warrant being changed. The second series
of recommendations are issues that require more examination and
deliberation and relate to the need for an in-depth study especially those
that might have yet undetermined financial impacts.
4.0 Recommendations
Short Term Recommendations
1. The fee for issuance of construction permits is recommended to be
changed from $70 to $40.
2. The General Plan Update fee is recommended to be changed from 2%
of construction valuation to .2% of construction valuation.
3. The fees for Construction Waste Recycling for re-roofing permits be
amended to be consistent with the covered project criteria contained in
the City of Seal Beach's Municipal Code Section 9.65.
4. The construction valuation data table should be updated on a yearly
basis to be consistent with published national data such as the tables
periodically produced by the International Code Council (ICC) or the
County of Los Angeles. The County of Los Angeles offers the best
alternative for use by the City of Seal Beach.
5. A flat fee program should be established for water heater replacement,
retrofit window change-outs and sola-tube permits secured by state
licensed contractors. Such flat fee is recommended to be set at $25.
6. The basis for the General Plan Update Fee should be based on the
Construction Permit Fee rather than the Construction Valuation.
7. The basis for the Archival Fee should be examined to determine
whether the fee should be based on the Construction Permit Fee
rather than the Construction Valuation
14
Longs Term Recommendations
1. As part of the budgeting process, fee adjustments should be
considered on the basis of multiple fiscal year revenue versus cost
considerations.
2. Consideration be given to instituting a surcharge fee for all permits and
such fees be utilized for the sole purpose of automating the city's
permitting and inspections activities. Such automation should consider
the ability to secure and pay for permits on-line as well as allowing
public records to be reviewed via city website access.
3. Examine the possibility of handling additional flat fee permits for items
other than those recommended in the short term recommendations.
5.0 Acknowledgements
The assistance of Mr. Jim Basharn and Ms. Vikki Beatley in providing information
and a review of this report needs to be acknowledged. Without their cooperation,
the task of completion of this study would have been more difficult
6.0 References
Establishing Building Permit Fees, Michael W. Bouse, ICC, 1998
15
REPORT EXHIBITS
16
N W W N N W e 0) tN a N N W W m N D
N K1 U, a a a O M M r
01 f� tD M N f-
m r tb O O tD f- O a a M d r O tD d d a to f- tb O O tD tD 0 N
� tD a M M K7 a N M tD tD Z tl7 N N Z Z a N to N O N tl7 tl7 a
M N O O N N N K7 a a7 a7 N N f a7 M a7 tD M a a7 N N tl7
a a M M K7 tLq tD tD O O U tl7 N tD tD O N a a7 r r N O O
Q a K7 tf1 M f� N M tD to to to M M tD O f� M O C',
a r a
f� K7 M M tp N tp N M tD W W W N M N tl7 tl7 M 01 M O M tD tD a
K7 M O O a7 N M to tD N N a a to M a N M O N N a7 M a a
O O N N O O M N N M M M M K7 tl7 tD N M M to
tD I- M N 01 K7 tD N a 01 tq N N N 01 f- M f- 01 tq O tq 0) O 01
a7 r K7 tl7 f� a r tl7 tD tq tq tq to tl7 tl7 N to r tl7 O tD M N tl7 to tq tf1
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
N tD tD N N K7 N N 0 0 0 tq tf1 N O tl7 tf1 01
M M M M tD tD tD 07 07 tD a O e a a7 r K7 a7 a7 tD
m u1 tD u1 a ro a u1 w O a7 w N N w N a s a N a 0 N O N
e W tD a a tD M tD M " M a Z Z
r r r r r r r r r r r
f�
to tD tD tD M a a r r r a7 r r K7 f� to r r N
tD tD a O U7 N N LL7 U7 O M O O a M a 01 f� a0 M LL7 LL7 a
V/ Q T f� a a r M tOD a LLa07 aM0 aM0 r r a a tN D LL
O r a O a O N a r r 07
/1 =
E
N O f� f� tD a7 O M M W a7 a7 M K7 01 r r tl7 to M a O tl7 a7 a7 a
tb tb O O tb W tb r N W M a a r a tb tb tD a M tb 01 O e a a r
co V/ m N M a7 W K7 N W O M N tD tD W a7 M a7 M a7 a O a7 K7 a N
N W K7 tl7 to tl7 to tl7 f� T 01 tq co tl7 tl7 N to to tl7 tD M M tl7 to to tD
W
d
t0
+y^ K7 M a a to N M O O to to 01 01 O N tD -e a N tl7 O tD N 01 01
O a r r r r r W r 0, M N N a7 K7 O O to tl7 O a7 O a tl7 N N
V _ N K7 M a a7 O tD to r r tD tD N to tD O f� a7 a tD a7 a7 tD
N a7 tD tD a7 K7 a7 tD f� a7 a7 a7 a7 tD tD N a7 a7 tD N tD M M tD to to tD
a
_ 0
iL L C-4 f� LL7 O O a LL7 f� a0 N N a a f� LLO O O 0 0 O O a a
Lq Lq
01 Lq a0 a0 01 01 Lq a t LL7
S r_ N m N a7 tD N tD a7 W O O a7 a7 r N N r N r a M r a7 a7 Or
LL U U
O tD a O O O M a M M N N M M M tD 01 r 1- tD a7 a K7 O tD M M M
LL W W a a a7 a7 W . N a a K7 tf1 M fl a a N r r N tq r tf1 tf1 cq
0 Q a Lr; L; a t, th a 0) 0 co � a; � a o a t- 0 a; o t- 0 0; a
N O f� f� O f� O f� a7 O O O O r r O O r M r K7 a r O 01 I'-
_ L N N N N M N N
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
�� fC
c _
L
�� IS
^N N
0 E
O
�
Ud O
E C
N u O N
•�N N U II U
d m = O
•V V O O
C VJ
O O O C , p) N U
m - N O
� INa �_ N � C �,O-O
7 m 7 y 'O L > N w '� = N
O O c O 3 d d = o v v v
r r O O N E 'U w N 0)
C7 .3 E m m ? y n L y w w v rn m w o
N N 7 d U O r C C m N N m N L N N E O N
N N U m = _ y VJ VJ y I`0 O a `0 d m 7 N O
la la L 2 la m m m C a s �, r _ d i` N O rn
m
7 N ` C_ C_ N 'O N L C 'O = O O m N L m m Q C N
r r C U d m m N E V O !a O-
�. m
2 c C m >C m >C m- >C m-
E m O
M 0 O d
EE EN� C T 2M O a) a) d N m w w w w ai g o
N N N N N y a ai m U r r r c N v
N N N N N N N C O m m pa d N N N m 2 N N N N O W E T
L N e
ll N Z
LL L th x E _ _ _ = a o II
d
N N M M a m W N N tCl N N M -e N M 'e N 7 m-0 U-O
a a a a a a a m w � U- z _ x -
o § \
S 0 •-
% o >
g n .0 .0
C)
R o
S Ld o
/ �
2 0 / ƒ % %
� 0 -0
$ k 3 Q k § §
U) E @ k k
$ 0 E _�
S U = n .g § §
S 0 0
-0 -0 \ \
7 2
CL �./ (D 2 45 5
'Fn 'Fn E
0 / 2 C ° C C
E Q m o �
_@ S : -0 §
$ § § E § o
k k
( % E ' � a \ \
® 7 > S c S
Q [ -o Q = ¢ ¢ e9. e9. 61). 61).
§ > § § § § § §
@ 0- S 2 2 0- 0- 0- 0-
@ E
LL d _n ui .2
W = U
-0
E Do R w
a.@ n E E @
Q 0 / U- � o k
2 n _§ 0 2 \ R R n ƒ
0, S ® o A�E > ta ta ta � �\
k E
0 .0
2 / o
Q D -� = g o
c 0 E o A d 6q
0 -0 0 c R 2 c E
2 0 R q p p
U) o - � k
2 F @
� E 2 > � � v). 4
Q § /
U- C)
E \ Q
•[ S 0 - /
% 3 o
0- 5 o \ 3
rn
N tD tD N N a0 a 01 01 W N a N N w a0 01 N w
N N U7 U7 a a N a O M Cl) r a r a7 r tD M Cl fl
m r a0 O O tD f� O a a M 0_ r O tD 0_ 0_ a tD f� a0 O O tD tD LL7 N
� tD a M M K7 a N M tD tD Z LL7 N N Z Z a N 00 N O � N LL7 LL7 a
M N O O N N N LL7 a a7 a7 N N K7 a7 M a7 tD M a a7 N N K7
a a M M K7 LL7 tD tD O O Lq N tD tD O N a (n N O O
Q a K7 LL7 M f� N M tD 00 00 00 M M tD O f� M O N a r � � � a
> M M LL7 N LL7 N M tD tD tD tD N M N K7 LL7 M a7 M O M tD tD a
Ln M O O (n N M a0 w N 4 -e a a0 M a N M O N N o M a a
O O N N O O M N N M M M M Lq Lq tD N M M a0
tD f� M N a7 K7 tD N a a7 00 N N N a7 r M f� a7 00 O � 00 a7 � O a7
� a7 r K7 LL7 f� a r LL7 tD 00 00 00 00 LL7 LL7 N 00 f� LL7 O tD M N LL7 00 00 LL7
N tD tD N N LL7 N N LL7 LL7 LL7 a0 K7 N O Ln Ln a7
M M M M tD tD tD 0) 0) tD a O It It 0) f' ul 0) 0) tD
m K7 w Ln a CO a M1 CO O 0) CO N N CO N 0_ 0_ a N a Lo N O N
e a0 tD a a tD M tD M M a Z Z tD a O a N N ul
f� tD tD tD tD M a a r r r a7 r r Lo f- CO r r N
a a a a tD tD a O u7 N N u7 u7 . . . O a M a a7 r cO M u1 u7 a
a T r a a r M tOD a LLO7 aM0 aM0 r r a a cwq r a O a O N a r r LLO7
=
N O o q w 0) O M M W a7 a7 M K7 0) eq fe LL7 CO M a O M1 a7 gt a
A, a0 a0 O O a0 a0 a0 r N O M a a r a a0 a0 tD a M a0 a7 O a a a r
�✓ m O W (p co Lo LL7 co N co Or M N w w co o M o M o a O () Lo a N
N T 0) co co K7 LL7 N 00 00 LL7 tD M M LL7 00 00 tD
r cq r T M O O N N T LLN7 O O c� LLN7 O T O a Lq N N
W t0 Q N LL7 M a a7 O tD 00 f� f� tD tD N 00 tD O f� a7 a tD a7 a7 tD
_ N a7 tD tD a7 K7 a7 tD f� a7 a7 a7 a7 tD tD N a7 a7 tD N tD M M tD 00 00 tD
O
}� (�
N (N O LL7 LL7 O M a N K7 f� le N N a a r O M O O 0) 0) O O a a
UN M r tD M M v v f- Lq a7 a7 Lq ao ao a7 a7 LL7 v v LL7
/A O_ m N T tOD N tD T r aM0 O O T T r f� N N T f� N r a M T T t-
tD a W W O M a M M N N M M M tD 't f� N tD a7 a N O tD M M M
� a0 a0 a a 01 01 a0 M N a a Lq Lq M fl a a N fl fl � N a0 fl Lq Lq a0
- - O O O O - - M N N - M - - - - O T
W V o
0
LL
y
d
Q
Y c 7 O
G V y o
U y E N� U
C
L m
p - U O O
7 C y
)N
Q L 'O N 1U0 E N
1�0 N N E
d O r L � N y
r r
—° y v E
3 3 y r E m m ? y y L y w -o n y E E
O N U O +O' C C 10 y N O y L y a)y L N
_ 0 d 7 6 >
N d U 7 U I`0 O > > a a EL ` O d a d m N O m
10 10 L O 7 N C 'O 'O T 7 O 7 y 1T0 O 7 C O d O C N-O O o
L L N L C d C C m 'O L
E U f6 C y II.
d d d d d d y C T T O L O O O O O N C C C C y y N .? O d
E E E E E E E y o 0 0 = °� > > > > > c v v v E aD LL
d d d d d d d
N N N N N N N C V U U 07 2 - - - - - O y y y VJ
y m m a d y y y y y d y d d O O r
a a a a a Q a o LL LL x c6 2 C C C C C y (n (n
N N M c? a m W
a a a a a a a m W u- W = x x -
O
q
�
LL
@ 0 7 \ 2 / % b \ \ c E / o b / 2 r / \ w — r e n \ \
« c c — — — — — — — — c A A A e A c c r w — A A
0
U
@
r_
E o
x /
@ k
F — CL o
U7 ±
E 2 0 y (
2 CL
0 ® 0 0 /
\ k0 \ 2 > (
m § m
\
g / / / _ e > e > — > >- > U) LL > -7 > > LL / \
AW � k 0
c _j
/ ° e
E
e e ƒ /
S \ \ \ \ 0 \
/ 42141
o o = _ _ = m m m = -E 7 7 %
\ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 0 n n n m f
I I I T-
0
/ / / ? ? ? 9 9 ? ? ? ? E E E @ @ @
e e e e e e e e e e e e .g .g .g e
S � � � \ \ \ \ � ƒ ƒ ƒ
0 0 o E E E E E E E E E 0 0 0 = _
§ Q O O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ f f f 2 2 2 2 ƒ 2 2 2 2 2EE
� kkk � ��������kkkkkkkkkkkkk ƒ ƒ 33
N
r
LL
a CO N 00 r- r- O O LO 00 q�t LO M CO - O LO N CO r- N NT m m CO m
y
0-) O O N LO r- LO LO CO CO LO O LO 07 LO 00 LO O r- 00 CO CO O 07 07 O CO CO CO - � 00 O O LO LO
r N N - - - r- M N - - - - - - - - - 00 00 N N N r- CO Lo Lo M
N
p
U
c
p
r
U
p
r
N
c
p
U
- U
_ U _
d � _ L
_ O �L/L �L./L� �L./L� U �p _ OC U U
L ) VJ VJ U a) > C L L
~ � n N 00 c —1 Q U)� � O
CD CD CD m
(� C
V m a C) N N m U m m m m an d
Q] O L
C OO n n V (D U O O O O O O
O \ O L O\ - - \ \ \ \ \ - - \ \ \ \ \ O - O O - - O \ L
\ LL
V
V
O
o � � F- 222 � � � � � � U' U' U' (D
ii �1 L L L U U U o
O O O � � � o) O
t/1 C C
O m U U U U U o 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 J J J
q
q
�
LL
rACCCCCerr eooc
f ear o Aonoo — — nnr �Towwr �TAOOOror
« � A � AAe — — — AAA — — — — — — — — — — — — AAweoe � rr
0
U
r_
:
U
0
Q * \
= y
%R
° (3) 2
U) E o e \ U) c
\ P e A / / e ƒ n E 5 $ ( % \ /5 )
7 k \ k 2 k k \ ƒ o ƒ « E ƒ 4-j 2 m @ ƒ ƒ § § § §
§ ) \ 2 \ E G 2 2 E & \ \ \ / \ \ 3 \ E ° ° ° °
o = 0 5 0 = o e _ 0 5 0 \ o o m ¥ b b G \ \ b \
gO LOIOEO QOIe > — > . e > _ e _ O2e > _ e _ > e >> >>
k
} 0
ƒ ƒ
\ / ./
na ? /
§ ccccccc = ? ? 44 Teem
§ § § _ / _
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ = a a 5 5 k k 2 / / , 2 5 /
0 e e e e e e e e 3 m 3 % % % % % % % % a a _o =o
m■ o e e » e e
e e O
0 m 0 ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 0 /U)U) / / pppp
M
N
� v
v v
t tiu
U C
t f0 n Q
U N W
m 0
0 0
O a U w
N O a)
L CL L c
V) U U 2 2 O 5 a U
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ m m m
O
O
O
O
r-I
O
O
O
O
r
O °
+, o
0
O Ln
O `"
LU
r
-W {�}
B
S
x LL 0
LU +_� 0
0
Em
L
0
a
0
0
m °
N
O
O
O
r-I
O 00 O 00 O 00 0 Ln
M M N N rl r-I V)-
V�- V�- tf�- tf�- tf�- tf�-
N
U
m W Q cn
N m O 0
"� �
m O O 00 m N O
y O N
N -
Q O C
(6 Q E Y O O �
U) U U 2 2 J J a U
0
0
0
0
V)
O
O
O
O
O
T- o
°o
O °
+� 00
V)
O
O
O
LL O
4-' N
CD
S o
(D
x (D o
°
W LL.
.E
L
0
a
a� °
CD
•� CD
m
0
0
0
0
N
d3
O O O O CD
I O O �
N N Et}
63 V) d3 d3
LO
N
� v
v v
t tiu
U C
U O1 LU Q
(0 CD Ln n O
C t O N J
u O a u t O
O
� n�n �n h.0 O O1 O1
m O O C CD > +�+
L1 E •++ Q C
70- L Q L c O
cn U U 2 2 O O U
O
O
O
O
O
O O
r O
O
0
°O
O
� O
O
Ul)
S z
W
U- a
�+ 0
O
E U
L W
LL
a
w O
IL O
O O
z 0
•� o O
0
m m
°O °O °O °O °O °O
O O O O O O
N O 00 l0 N
N
� v
v v
+�
U
t f0 n Q
U N L
(O CD L O
C t O
m Ln Ln Ln w 00 N E N O
m O N O C � m > a:
L E a
75- L CL L c le
cn U U 2 2 O 0 a U
I
O
O
O
O
O �
O
O
O
r
{f}
O °o
++ o
O Lr
IA-
O
S
LL L O
LL °O
m
OEMO
O
IA-
a
O
O
O
IA-
M N N rl r-I V}
i/)- IA- i/)- IA- i/)-
a,
v
t b.0 I`
u
v W a
m 0
0 � O
C t O N J
u O -0 u O
O
m Ln Ln Ln w O O1 E O1
N O 0 O C m m > �:-
f0 L Q L C Y C {n O 7
V) U U 2 2 O _5 a U
i ■ r
O
O
O
O
O
r-I
O
O �
O
O °o
O �
r 0
{f} v00i
O
_ O
N
LU o
LL
OC
00
o
a
0
0
0
0
N
O O O O O O O O
l0 ll N O 00 l0 -tt N
r-I r-I r-I r-I V)- V)- V} V}
tf�- tf�- IA-
00
N
Ln
� v
v v
+�
U
t f0 n Q
U 01 L
(0 CD L O
C t O
u O -0 u :t! 4--
O
M 0 0 0 m O N N
m
0 N O C � m > �
L E a 0
L CL L c
V) U U 2 2 O 0 a U
O
O
O
O
O o
O O
O
r 00
O
O
� O
S O
K O
W
LL
OC
°O
O
a 0
Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O
m 00 Il l0 U M N i--I
v v N
+�
U
t f0 n Q
U N L
(O CD O
C t O N
�n �n vii pip 00 E N O
m O O C Co to >
L E a
L CL L c
V) U U 2 2 O 0 a U
O
O
O 00
O o
r o
Ln
O
O
O
r
{f}
o
LL
Y E
*' a
s �
0
�( 0
w _
m
ca
3
.� o
a�
n/ N
a
ca
0
H 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I, l0 L M N i--I
C)
M
Ln
� v
v v
+�
U
t f0 n Q
U N L
(O CD O
C t O N
u O -0 u :t! 4--
O
�n �n Ln w O N N
L n co 12
.L Q c Q O
V) U U 2 2 O 0 a U
C i ■ ■ ■
O
O
O
O J o
r °
{f} o
O °
0
O
O
O
O
N
0
� o
LL 00
J 'E
a
s �
x � 0
w � o
m
ca
o
0
'> o
a�
ca
a
°
0 0
� o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o � o � o � o Ln
M M N N
tf�- tf�- tf�- 1/1,
TI-
M
Ln
� v
v v
+�
U
t f0 n Q
U N L
�\ m L O
m C t O
O U O -0 U 4--
+' O m O
O w m O O c m
O _ L a
L a c a o
a) L N 7 Y C to
O L cn U U 2 2 O JO a U
r > o
L O
O
Q 0
ca a °
Ln
D co
O a O
O
O z o °O
} o O Ln o
D o
� m �
V�
U-
�_, -W O
E
S �
K
w a
m
O
ca o
Ln
3
a�
•� V�
a�
oc
ca
a
ca
C
O 00 IZ N O 00 IZ N
N rl r-I r-I r-I V} V} V} V}
Exhibit N
Fee Schedule Recommended Changes
SECTION 2. BUILDING FEES (Resolution No. 6272)
A. Duplication Fees —Approved Plans
1. Sheets up to 8 1/2" x 11..........................................................$0.25 per page
2. Sheets larger than 8 W' x 11...................................................$1.50 per page
B. Permit Issuance Fee ............................................................................$70- 40
C. Building Permit Fees
1. Building Permit Fees based on valuation shall be collected according to
the following schedule:
TABLE A
Total Valuation Fee
$500 or less Fee of 10% of the permit valuation
$500.01 to$2,000 Fee of$81.65 for the first$500 plus $3.05 for each
additional $100 or fraction hereof, up to and
including $2,000
$2,000.01 to $25,000 Fee of$127.40 for the first$2,000 plus
$14.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof,
up to and including$25,000
$25,000.01 to$50,000 Fee of$449.40 for the first$25,000 plus$10.10 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and
including$50,000
$50,000.01 to$100,000 Fee of$701.90 for the first$50,000 plus$7 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and
including$100,000
$100,000.01 to $500,000 Fee of$1,051.90 for the first$100,000 plus$5.60 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and
including $500,000
$500,000.01 to$1,000,000 Fee of$3,291.90 for the first$500,000 plus $4.75 for
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and
including $1,000,000
$1,000,000.01 and up Fee of$5,666.90 for the first$1,000,000 plus $3.65
for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
2. Building valuation data sheet shall be used in conjunction with the fee
schedule established in Section 2.C.1. The construction valuation data
table should be updated on a yearly basis to be consistent with published
national data such as the tables periodically produced by the International
Code Council (ICC) http://www.iccsafe.org or the County of Los Angeles.
The Se erne of that sheet hall be the McSt of irrent Building Vali atien Data
npested and updated bi ye aFly on the uiebsite of the International Gode
3. Geographic Information System (GIS) Update - Surcharge of$.0015 x
value of building levied with building permit.
4. General Plan Revision Fee — Surcharge of 2-Ok 0.2% of building permit
fee valuation.
5. Plan Archival Fee (Records Management) — Surcharge of .002% of
building permit fee valuat4en.
6. Miscellaneous Valuation
a. Pool Fees
1) Swimming Pool........................................$3,000 + $13.50 per sq. ft.
.......................................................................... + $550 for heater
2) Spa..........................................................$1,400 + $11.25 per sq. ft.
.............................................. + $550 for heater
b. Patio Fees
1) Open.................................................................. $11.25 per sq. ft.
2) Screened ........................................................... $22.50 per sq. ft.
c. Fences & Block Walls ............................................. $22.50 per linear ft.
d. Sign Fees
1) Free Standing .........................$33.75 per sq. ft. (each face) + $300
2) Wall Signs.......................................................... $22.50 per sq. ft.
e. Roofing Fees
1) Composition & Gravel ...................................... $101.25 per sq. ft.
2) Composition Shingles ...................................... $101.25 per sq. ft.
3) Wood Shingles .................................................. $146.25 per sq. ft.
4) Wood Shakes ................................................... $207.50 per sq. ft.
5) Clay Tile................................................................. $270 per sq. ft.
7. Plan Check Fees
a. Valuation exceeds $1,000 and a plan is required ..................................
65% of the building permit fee
b. Mechanical, Electrical, or Plumbing when a plan or other data is
required to be submitted for such work..................................................
..................... 65% of the total permit fee (excluding initial permit fees)
C. Expedited Plan Check...........................................................................
...........................................Additional 50% of standard plan check fee
EXCEPTION: The expedited plan check fee shall be waived by the Building Official in the case of
reconstruction due to a disaster-related occurrence.
8. Miscellaneous Fees
a. Swimming Pool Fee ................................. Table A, Based on Valuation
b. Spa Fee ................................................... Table A, Based on Valuation
Public Works Bond for Damages to Public Improvements...........$385
Public Works Street Permit/Rubbish Container..............................$25
c. Patio Fee.................................................. Table A, Based on Valuation
33
d. Fences and Block Wall.............................. Table A, Based on Valuation
e. Sign Fee.................................................... Table A, Based on Valuation
f. Roofing Fee .............................................. Table A, Based on Valuation
g. Sandblasting .................................. $0.06 per sq. ft. of wall face surface
h. Tent Fee — Up to 1,000 sq. ft.................................................................
Each additional 1,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof
I. Renewal of Expired Permits — a fee of 1/2 the total amount for a new
permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will
be made in the original plans and specifications for such work; and
provided that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded
one full year, in which case a full fee shall be required.
j. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy................................................ $64
k. Demolition Permit Fee.........Table A, Contract price for demolition work
I. Moving Permit Fee.............. Table A, Valuation based on contract price
(Special investigative fee required)
m. Contractor Business License Fee ................................................. $212
n. Deputy Inspector Contractor Business License Fee ..................... $60
(Additionally each Business License is subject to an additional State-
mandated fee of$1 which must be collected by the City.)
o. Building permits for the following items are issued based on a flat
permit fee of $25 when the permit is obtained by a state licensed
contractor licensed to do the type of work:
1. Water heater replacements (same location)
2. Retrofit windows
3. Sola-Tube installations
9. Special Service Fees
a. Charged for a special inspection by a City Building Inspector
Affected Floor Area
0-2,500 sq. ft. ...........................................................................$190
2,501-5,000 sq. ft. ....................................................................$380
5,001-7,500 sq. ft. ....................................................................$575
7,501-10,000 sq. ft. ..................................................................$765
Each additional 10,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof......................$200
b. Non-Business Hour Inspections — requested by a permitee..................
................................ $60 per hour plus all other fees (minimum 1 hour)
C. Excessive Inspections —for inspections determined by the Building
Official to be excessive and beyond at least 1 re-inspection of an item
of work caused by faulty workmanship or work not ready for
inspection at time of request...................... $50 per hour per inspection
d. Additional Plan Check Review by changes, additions, or revisions to
approved plans............................. $50 per hour (minimum 1 hour)
e. Inspection for any change of occupancy classification, use type (as
indicated in Table 5a of the Uniform Building Code) or certification of
compliance with Building Codes and ordinances not otherwise
provided for above............................................... $100 per inspection
f. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated..............................
...................................................... $40 per 1/2 hour (minimum % hour)
34
10. Electrical Code Fees
a. Electrical Services
1) Each service switch 300 volts or less............................$0.018/amp.
2) Each service switch 301 to 600 volts ..............................$0.05/amp.
3) Each service switch over 600 volts .................................$0.09/amp.
b. Electrical Systems in new structures or building additions — the
following fees shall apply to electrical systems contained within or on
any new structure, including new additions to existing structures
1) $0.0064 per sq. ft.
a) Warehouse —that part which is over 5,000 sq. ft.
b) Storage garages where no repair work is done
c) Aircraft hangers where no repair work is done
2) $0.01375 per sq. ft.
a) Residential accessory buildings attached or detached such as
garages, carports, sheds, etc.
b) Garages and carports for motels, hotels, and commercial
parking
c) Warehouses up to and including 5,000 sq.
d) All other occupancies not listed area that is over 5,000 sq ft.
3) $0.028 per sq. ft. — for all other occupancies not listed up to and
including 5,000 sq. ft.
4) $0.0028 per sq. ft. —for temporary wiring during construction
c. Temporary Service
1) Temporary for construction service, including poles or pedestal..
..........................................................................................$17 each
2) Approval for temporary use of permanent service equipment
prior to completion of structure or final inspection........$17 each
3) Additional supporting poles........................................... $5 each
4) Service for decorative lighting, seasonal sales lot, etc....$9 each
d. Miscellaneous
1) Area lighting standards up to and including 10 on a site.$5 each
Over 10 on a site.......................................................$2.50 each
2) Private residential swimming pools, including supply wiring,
lights, motors, and bonding..........................................$34 each
3) Commercial swimming pools....................................................$6
4) Inspection for reinstallation of idle meter (removed by utility
company) ................................................................$12.75 each
5) Residential Photo Voltaic Installation .................................no fee
6) Commercial Photo Voltaic Installation:
Upto 50 kW .....................................................................$1,000
51 kW to 250 kW................ $1,000 plus $7 for each kW over 50
251 kW and higher........... $2,400 plus $5 for each kW over 250
e. Illuminated Signs — New, Relocated, or Altered
Up to and including 5 sq. ft. ........................................................$12.75
Over 5 sq. ft. and not over 25 sq. ft.............................................$15.25
Over 25 sq. ft. and not over 50 sq. ft...........................................$20.50
Over 50 sq. ft. and not over 100 sq. ft................................................$2
Over 100 sq. ft. and not over 200 sq. ft.......................................$30.50
35
Over 200 sq. ft. and not over 300 sq. ft. ................................$38.25
Over 300 sq. ft.......................................................$0.125 per sq. ft.
f. Overhead Line Construction — poles and anchors....................$5 each
g. Alternate Fee Schedule
1) Alterations, additions, and new construction where no structural
work is being done or where it is impractical to use a sq. ft.
schedule; convert to units as follows .................... $3.80 each unit
2) For each 5 outlets or fraction thereof where current is used or
controlled charged — 1 unit
3) For each 5 lighting fixtures or fraction thereof where current is
used or controlled charged — 1 unit
4) For multi-assembly (festoon type plug mold etc.) — each 20 ft. or
fraction thereof— 1 unit
h. Power Apparatus
For equipment rated in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (kW), or kilovolt-
amperes (KVA), the fee for each motor, transformer, and/or
appliance shall be:
0 to 1 unit..................................................................................$3.85
Over 1 unit and not over 10 units..............................................$8.50
Over 10 units and not over 50 units .............................................$17
Over 50 units and not over 100 units ...........................................$34
Over100 units..............................................................................$51
NOTE: For equipment or appliances having more than one motor or heater, the sum of
the combined ratings may be used to compute the fee. These fees include all
switches, circuit breakers, contractors, re lays, and other directly related control
equipment.
i. Other Inspections and Fees
1) Inspections outside of normal business hours .......... Section 2.C.9
2) Re-inspection............................................................ Section 2.C.9
3) Additional Plan Check Review.................................. Section 2.C.9
4) Miscellaneous apparatus, conduits, and conductors for electrical
apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit is
required, but for which no fee is herein set forth.................$12.50
11. Plumbing Code Fees
a. Miscellaneous Services
1) Plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including
water, drainage piping, and back flow protection)..................$7 each
2) Building sewer and trailer park sewer....................................$15 each
3) Rainwater system — per drain (inside building)......................$7 each
4) Cesspool (where permitted) ..................................................$25 each
5) Private sewage disposal system ...........................................$40 each
6) Water heater and/or vent.........................................................$7 each
7) Gas piping system of 1 to 5 outlets .........................................$5 each
8) Additional gas piping system per outlet............................. $1.25 each
36
9) Industrial waste pre-treatment interceptor, including its trap and
vent, except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture
traps.......................................................................................$7 each
10) Water piping and/or water treating equipment — installation,
alteration, or repair............................................................ $7 each
11) Drainage, vent repair, or alteration of piping ....................... $7 each
12) Lawn sprinkler system or any one meter including back flow
protection devices ........................................................ $7 each
13) Atmospheric type not included in Item 12
a) 1 to 5...............................................................................$7 each
b) 6 or more.........................................................................$1 each
14) Back flow protective devices other than atmospheric type vacuum
breakers
a) 2 inch diameter or less....................................................$7 each
b) Over 2 inch diameter.....................................................$15 each
15) Gray water system ..............................................................$40 each
16) Reclaimed water system initial installation and testing $30 per hour
17) Reclaimed water system annual cross-connection testing
(excluding initial test)................................................... $30 per hour
b. Other Inspection and Fees
1) Outside of normal business hours.................................. Section 2.C.9
2) Re-inspection ................................................................. Section 2.C.9
3) Additional plan review .................................................... Section 2.C.9
c. Sewer connection permit fee.......................................................up to $25
12. Mechanical Code Fees
a. Miscellaneous Services
1) Forced air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and
vents attached to such appliance — each installation or
relocation:
To and including 100,000 BTU/H ........................................ $13.25
Over 100,000 BTU/H............................................................ $16.25
2) Floor furnace, including wall heater, or floor-mounted unit heater
— each installation or relocation ..........................................$13.25
3) Suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor mounted unit
heater— each installation, relocation, or replacement..........$13.25
4) Appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit
— each installation, relocation, or replacement.......................$6.50
5) Heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit
— each repair, alteration, or addition to and including 100,000
BTU/H ..............................................................................................
............................................................................................. $12.25
6) Boiler or compressor to and including 3 horsepower, or absorption
system to and including 100,000 BTU/H — each installation or
relocation...............................................................................$13.25
37
7) Boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower to and including 15
horsepower or each absorption system over 100,000 BTU/H and
including 500,000 BTU/H — each installation or relocation...$24.25
8) Boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower to and including 30
horsepower or each absorption system over 500,000 BTU/H to
and including 1 ,000,000 BTU/H — each installation or
relocation ...........................................................................$33.25
9) Boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50
horsepower or each absorption over 1,000,000 BTU/H to and
including 1,750,000 BTU/H — each installation or relocation......
...........................................................................................................................................................$49.50
10) Boiler or refrigerator compressor over 50 horsepower or each
absorption system over 1 ,750,000 BTU/H - each installation or
relocation...........................................................................................................................................................................$82.75
11) Air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute,
including ducts attached thereto...........................$9.50 each
NOTE. This fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit that is a portion of a factory
assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler, or absorption unit for
which a permit is required elsewhere in this Resolution.
12) Air handling unit over 10,000 CFM .............. $16.15 each
13) Evaporative cooler other than portable type... $9.50 each
14) Ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or
air conditioning system authorized by a permit........ $9.50 each
15) Ventilation fan connected to a single duct...... $6.50 each
16) Installation or relocation of each domestic type incinerator
.........................................................................$16.25 each
17) Installation of each hood that is served by mechanical
exhaust, including ducts for such hood ...................$9.50 each
18) Installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial type
incinerator...........................................................$66.50 each
19) Appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the California
Mechanical Code, but not classified in other appliance
categories or for which no other fee is listed in this Code...........
................................................................................... $9.50 each
20) Duct extensions, other than those attached .............$5 each
21) Permit fees for fuel-gas piping shall be as follows when
Chapter 12 of the California Plumbing Code is applicable
a) Gas piping system of 1 to 4 outlets.........$5.50 each
b) Gas-piping system of 5 or more outlets......................
............................... $5.50 each plus $1 per outlet over 4
b. Other Inspection Fees
1 ) After normal hour inspection ......................Section 2.C.9
2) Re-inspection . ... .. ........... .. ... . ... .... . . . .... Section 2.C.9
3) Additional Plan Reviews .................................. Section 2.C.9
38
13. Refunds
If construction has not commenced, a refund of 80% of the permit will be
returned when permits are cancelled at the request of the permitee. No
permit fee will be refunded for any permit that has expired. No refund will
be made of the plan check fee when the plan check service has been
performed. A refund of 80% of the plan check fee will be returned if the
plan check service has not been performed.
D. Construction Excise Tax
E. Environmental Reserve Tax — For new residential living unit construction
F. Non-Subdivision Park and Recreation Fees
G. Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste Program
1. Administrative fee....................................... $0.05 sq. ft. of Covered Project
2. Fee deposit ..................................................... $1 sq. ft. of Covered Project
3. Fees for residential re-roofs of 1,000 sq ft or more
a. Residential re-roof permits (only) fee deposit ...................................$500
b. Administrative fee for residential re-roof permits.................................$40
Z Redden+ial re reef permits osi+ $500
4. AdMiflistFrr'R+rr e fee for residential re-reef perrrmrlits......................
39