Item Coversheet

Agenda Item No: 6.






AGENDA REPORT

DATE:

May 4, 2021 

TO:

Mayor and City Council

FROM:

Stefan T. Chatwin, City Manager


SUBJECT:Public Hearing;

and Resolution 2021-83 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Amending Fees for Recovery of Costs of the Building Safety Division for Counter Services, Plan Review, Inspection, and Code Enforcement and Ordering the Fees to be Adjusted Annually to Stay Current with Expenses

RECOMMENDED ACTION 
Hold public hearing and adopt resolution.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE 
The State of California mandates every city and county to enforce the Building Standards Code, also known as Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. These State mandates require the performance of plan review; permit issuance; inspection; and code enforcement of all construction, modification(s), and/or repair(s) of all buildings and structures within the City. Because of these mandates, the State allows cities and counties to adopt fees to recover the costs for services and enforcement.

A review of the Building Safety Division’s costs for services has not occurred in over 20 years. To ensure the Building Safety Division (Division) can enhance services, reduce permit issuance timelines, adequately recover costs, and not place an undue burden on the General Fund, the Division recently reviewed their fee structure.

A consultant reviewed the Division’s operations, desired program implementations, necessary software and hardware needs, and overall costs of services. The result of the review is outlined in the Fee Justification Report (Attachment 3) and the Proposed Fee Schedule (Attachment 2 - Exhibit A).
DISCUSSION

The proposed fee schedule is a result of a fee study performed by a contracted consultant and was prepared in coordination with staff. The main intent behind the study is to ensure adequate cost recovery, enable improved services, create a fee schedule that is transparent to the public. For various fees, the current fee schedule is complicated, difficult to assess, unclear to customers, and subject to errors.

The proposed fee schedule sets forth clear direction for staff in the application of fees and creates an easy to follow, transparent fee schedule for the public. The new fee structure creates almost 100 new “flat rate” and “base rate” permit fees for items like water heaters, heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC), solar, re-roofs, swimming pools, decks, kitchen/bath remodels, and many others. The fees also include necessary administrative and record-keeping activities to satisfy laws requiring retention of certain documents, and collection of mandated state fees paid to various state agencies.

State law regulates these fees based on a simple principle: the cost of the overall fees must not exceed the cost of enforcement. Some of the factors in determining that amount include the cost of all support staff, salaries, benefits, communications, transportation, technology, and all overhead costs (building operating costs, utilities, portions of the services of the city manager, city attorney, department heads, etc.). The state law does not require that the cost of each individual fee for service be limited to the actual cost of any specific permit, state law does require that the overall cost of running the operation is recovered by the overall fees charged. Cities commonly subsidize fees for water heaters, furnaces, solar projects, etc. to encourage permit procurement and/or reduce the cost for projects that are in the public interest.

The proposed fee schedule uses the fully loaded costs. As a result, some project types will see a fee increase, mostly related to new construction projects, and some projects will see fee reductions compared to our current fee schedule. Various fees for maintenance permits and permits in the best interest of the community are proposed at lower than the full cost to provide services. These permit types will enhance permit procurement, ensure life safety inspections are performed, and improve overall safety and longevity of existing structures within the city.

The proposed fees will recover approximately 90%-95% of the Division’s operating budget. However, this is variable depending on project types, sizes, and their associated permit costs.

Following are a few examples of the fee changes on common permit types:

1. A current solar permit for a typical rooftop solar installation costs $221.09. Under the proposed fee schedule, the permit cost for solar systems up to 15 kilowatts (larger than most new residential systems) will be reduced to $165.61; a 35% reduction. In addition, this fee is currently not subject to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual increase and therefore will remain at that fee through at least 2025. This fee reduction will aid in the installation of energy efficient solar systems throughout the city.

2. The current fee for a 130,000 square-foot retail space (e.g., a Target or Walmart type space) is approximately $113,350 (excluding state fees). Under the proposed fee schedule, the new fee amount is approximately $124,900 (excluding state fees), which is a 10% increase.

3. The current fee for a new custom built 2,500 square-foot single family dwelling with a 500 square-foot garage is approximately $4,500 (excluding state fees). Under the proposed fee schedule, the new fee is approximately $5,200 (excluding state fees), which is a 15% increase. A production tract house would be approximately $3,350, a 20% increase. Production tract houses are reviewed under a master permit, so plan review on production housing is much less than on a new single residence. However, there is still plan review that must be performed on production housing to verify compliance with the approved plans, recorded tract map, addressing, etc. Unfortunately, the Division had not been collecting any plan review fees on production housing, which is the main factor in the fee increase.

4. To promote redevelopment and programs such as Retail to Restaurant, staff took a closer look at single discipline or specialty installation fees. Current permit fees for commercial kitchen hoods ranged from $800 and up. Under the new fee schedule, this and similar types of projects are assigned a base fee. The proposed base fee for a commercial hood is reduced under the proposed fee schedule to approximately $310; a 258% reduction.

The most consistent complaint the Division receives is the time it takes to receive a permit. While in many instances turn-around times depend on the responsiveness and thoroughness of applicants, the Division does have room for growth. Our goal is to improve the customer experience and reduce permit issuance timelines.

The Division has worked diligently to address issues with project approval timelines. The Division has improved overall initial plan review timelines from 4-6 weeks to 3-4 weeks, with the goal to improve the review time to no more than 2 weeks. The council additionally approved multiple staffing changes this year that will make the Division more efficient once fully implemented.

The proposed fee schedule will help cover the cost of the additional staffing and allow the Division to advance their current services. The Division created expedited plan review programs and is working on implementation of an enhanced online plan submittal permitting system, and other technological improvements to increase efficiencies. In addition, staff will contract three to five firms to assist the Division, as needed, to maintain improved service levels during peak workloads and/or to assist in completion of special projects.

The proposed fee schedule will ensure the Division is able provide and enhance services and enhance services that the community expects and desires.

Lastly, once the proposed fee schedule was determined, staff compared Fairfield to surrounding jurisdictions. Many of the City's set fees and base rate fees are lower than most jurisdictions in the region. However, based on the type of project, it varies by jurisdiction. One comparison used was a 130,000 square-foot retail space as noted above, in their comparison to other jurisdictions. Generally speaking, Fairfield is in line with surrounding jurisdictions.

Comparison of a base building permit fee for a new 130,000 square-foot retail space. The fees below include plan check, inspection, and mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) fees, unless otherwise noted.

• Fairfield - $124,900 (includes the City’s 8.38% technology fee, Resolution 2009-54)
• Vacaville - $109,775
• Tracy - $118,379 (does not include MEP)
• Vallejo - $140,672
• Sacramento - $149,633
• Richmond - $198,080



FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed resolution reduces the financial impact on the City's General Fund as a result of implementing the proposed fees. The Building Safety Division’s proposed budget for FY 2021-2022 is $2.77 million. The proposed fees are anticipated to increase the Division’s projected revenue for FY 2021-2022 from $2.4 million to approximately $2.64 million. Please note, these are estimated revenue projections. The overall revenues are directly related to and dependent on the permit volume, size, and types of projects permitted. There may be times when permit volumes are lower and additional general funds may be necessary to maintain service levels. There also may be times when additional staffing or contract staff may be needed to maintain service levels in peak volumes.
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION 
A public hearing notice was published in the Daily Republic on April 23, 2021.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION 
Council may choose not to adopt the proposed fee schedule. If not adopted, the Building Safety Division will not appropriately recover costs, and this could have a negative impact on the general fund. Alternatively, council may also provide direction on different levels of proposed cost recovery.
STAFF CONTACT 
Jeff Thomas, Chief Building Official
(707) 428-7442
jthomas@fairfield.ca.gov

COORDINATED WITH 
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Proposed Resolution
Exhibit A: Fee Schedule
Fee Justification Report
REVIEWERS:
ReviewerActionDate
Thomas, JeffApproved4/23/2021 - 11:50 AM
Gassaway, DavidApproved4/23/2021 - 1:40 PM
Alexander, AmberApproved4/26/2021 - 12:51 PM
Alexander, AmberApproved4/26/2021 - 12:51 PM