R-9905City Council Meeting 11-25-03
Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NO. 9905 (CCS)
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA SETTING NEW USER FEES IN THE
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RELATED TO SYSTEMATIC INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE, DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PERMITS
FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica is committed to protecting its resident's
health, safety, welfare, and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, one way the City affords this protection is through the imposition of
permit conditions which ensure that particular uses or developments will not adversely
impact the general welfare or residents quality of life; and
WHEREAS, in order to serve their intended purpose of protecting residents and
the public, permit conditions must be enforced; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that permit conditions should be
enforced through a program of routine inspections; and
WHEREAS, the cost of this program should be born by permit holders who
benefit from the permits; and
WHEREAS it is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to charge for the fuli costs
of services provided by City Staff when such services benefit individual users rather
than members of the community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.72.010 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code authorizes
fees for systematic inspections and enforcement to ensure compliance with health and
safety requirements and permit conditions on private property and this section allows
such user fees or fees for services to be set by ordinance, by a resolution adopted by
the City Council or by any other means authorized. by law; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to set fees for systematic inspection of commercial
uses subject to certain discretionary planning approvals by this resolution in order to
preserve public resources for the benefit of the community as a whole and avoid
diverting these resources to the benefit of individuals,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF FEES: The user fees for services related to
systematic inspections and enforcement of compliance with conditions of approval of
conditional use, development review and performance standards permits for
commercial developments, as shown in the attached Table A, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2: PAYMENT OF FEES AND LATE PAYMENT CHARGES: All user
fees shown in Table A shall be payable within thirty (30) days after performance of the
inspection. Payment of the fee after thirty (30) days from the date of the inspection shall
be subject to an additional late payment charge. The late payment charge shall equal
a
ten percent (TO%) of the user fee amount due the City and shall be irr addition to the
amount of the user fee for the inspection. Interest shall accrue on all unpaid monies
due, exclusive of late payment charges, at the rate of one half df one percent per
month, pro rata, of the total amount due from the date the user fee amount becomes
delinquent until the date that all delinquent amounts are paid to the City.
SECTION. 3. Commencing upon July 1, 2004 and on July 1 of each fiscal year
thereafter, all .fees established by .this resolution shall be administratively revised
annually by a factor equal to the difference in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside
Consumer Price Index for Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the twelve (12) month
period April through April of the prior fiscal year. No later than January 1, 2008 and at
IeasY five (5) year intervals thereafter, the City will conduct a comprehensive study of all
fees set by this resolution to determirie if fees are adequately recovering City costs for
these services and the results of the comprehensive study shall be reported to the
Council.
SECTION 4. The user fees for services shall be effective on February 1, 2004,
which is at least sixty (60) days after adoption, in accordance with Government Code
Section 66017.
9
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify. to the adoption of this resolution and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARSHA J NES MOUTRIE
City Attorn
io
Table A
Building and Safety Division
User Fees and Administrative Costs
Systematic Inspection And Enforcement Of Compliance With Conditions Of Approval
For Certain Discretiona Plannin Permits Related To Commercial Uses
Fee Item Amount
Code Enforcement Ins ection Fees
Monitorin Ins ection of Commercial Uses
1 Initial Ins ections
Conditional Use Permit $500
Develo ment Review Permit $500
Performance Standards Permit $500
2 Noncom liance Fees-Each Additional Re-ins ection
Conditional Use Permit $300
Develo ment Review Permit $300
Performance Standards Permit $300
ii
Attachment B
Estimated Costs And Proposed Fees
Related To Systematic Inspections And
Enforcement Of Compliance
With Conditions Of Approval
For Conditional Use, Development Review
And Performance Standards Permits
For Commercial Uses
City of Santa Monica
October 1, 2003
Prepared by City Staff
Based on a Report by
Zucker Systems
1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 260-2680
www. zuckersystems, com
For Questions about this report, contact:
Tim McCormick, Building Officer
Building and Safety Division
Planning and Community Development Department
City of Santa Monica
12
L
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................14
II. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................14
OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 14
CITY-WIDE INDIRECT COSTS ..:........................................................... 17
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COSTS...... 20
CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS ........................................................ 24
III. PROPOSED FEES ..................................................................................27
List of Tables
Table 1 Comparison of Allocated Indirect Costs ....................................... 18
Table 2 FY 01/02 Citywide Costs Allocations Planning and Community
Development Department .......................................................... .. 19
Table 3 Planning and Community Development Department
Administration Costs ........:............................................................... .. 22
Table 4 Building & Safety Division Costs ................................................ .. 23
Table 5 Permits to be Monitored ............................................................. .. 24
Table 6 Required Hours Per Inspection Cycle .................................:...... .. 25
Table 7 Average Cost Per Inspection Cycle ........................................... .. 26
Table 8 Number of Inspection Cycles Per Year ...................................... .. 26
Table 9 Number of FTE Required ........................................................... .. 26
Table 10 Proposed Fees ......................................................................... .. 27
List of Figures
Figure 1 Fee Development Process .......................................................... 15
Figure 2 Planning and Community Development Department .................. 20
13
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is proposing a new program to monitor conditions of approval for commercial
uses with. the following types of permits: conditional use, development review and
performance standards. This study examines the costs of such a program and proposes
related development user fees in the Planning and Community Development
Department to recover those costs.
The study relied on cost data from City budget documents in calculating billable hourly
rates for each employee providing direct time to the compliance monitoring activity.
These rates included overhead, however, non-permit or non-development related
overhead was excluded. Staff time per permit was based on an analysis of available
records, staff estimates and experience with similar code enforcement activities.
Inspection fees will be due within 30 days after performance of the work and billing.
II. METHODOLOGY
Overview
To develop a reasonably accurate fee for any specific application, the following ten
steps must be identified and calculated. The steps are designed to recover the applied
labor hours as well as those overhead-and expense costs that can properly and
reasonably applied to a specific application. The steps are illustrated in Figure 1.
1. City-Wide Indirect Costs
These costs are annually calculated by the City's Finance Department and
allocated to each City department and in some cases, organizational units or
divisions within the department.
2. Department Administration
The administration division costs of a department are allocated to the other
divisions or sections within the department. In some instances iY is necessary to
separate labor costs directly related to permit processing or inspections as well
as other costs not related to permitting. Management costs are spread on a per
capita basis.
3. Direct Non-Personnel Costs
The direct non-personnel costs for this study include the following two
components:
Direct Supplies and Expenses
These costs are calculated for each department or division and are taken
from the approved annual budget. Costs that are not related to
development plan review, permitting or inspection (normally consulting
costs or special department expenses) are deducted.
14
Figure 1
Fee Development Process
1. Centmiservices charges allocated
to departments or divisions.
2. Departmentadministrationdivisons
allocate costs m operating sections:
3. Directnon-personnel Expenses
allocated to departments or
divisions.
4. Separate employees into
administration and. direct.
5. Operating section costs allocated
to individual employees.
6.. Full cost of employees calculated..
7. Billable hours are calculated.
8. Fully burdened houdycostsare
determined.
9.Applied fmurs/time for each task
are calculated.
10. Fullyburdened houdycosts are
multiplied by time for each task
to arrive a4 a fee.
15
Capital Expenditures
These costs are calculated for each department or division and are taken from
the approved annual budget. These capital costs usually involve minor
department equipment and have been included in our calculations. The City also
has a capital equipment budget that is not. charged back to departments and is
not included in the cost analysis.
4. Direct Staff and Support8taff
The division employees are separated into two groups. Support and
administration employees in one group (indirect employees), and those providing
direct service into another group (direct employees).
5. Total Division Costs
The total division costs are allocated to the full time equivalent budgeted
positions in the department normally by an equal share for each employee.
These costs are called division overhead.
6. Salary and Fringe Benefits
The employee's salary and fringe benefits (including additional income and
worker's compensation insurance costs) are calculated and added to the division
overhead for a total cost per employee.
7. Billable Hours
Billable hours are defined as those hours an employee is available to work on
applications, activities and/or functions that can be charged directly to the
applicant. Billable hours takes the maximum available in a standard year (2,080}
and subtracts those hours that an employee is paid for but is not available to
work on any specific assignment (IE. vacation, sick, holidays, meetings,. training,
etc.).
8. Cost Per Billable Hour
The cost per billable hour is calculated by dividing the total cost per employee by
the billable hours of that employee.
9. Applied Hours
Applied hours are those hours that the involved employee or group of employees
in each discipline involved is estimated to spend on the average in the review or
processing of that specific application, function and/or activity:
10. Permit Costs
The time required to perform a task (Step 9) is multiplied by the fully burdened
cost per hour (Step 8) to arrive at the cost of providing the permit or conducting
the inspection. The costs are normally shown as a flat fee or a cost per square
foot of building.
16
Indirect Costs
Indirect cost calculation is the first step in calculating the total cost for services. A
convenient way to understand the importance of indirect costs. is to distinguish between
direct costs and indirect costs.
Direct costs are those costs for people, services and supplies that directly benefit a
specific department, division or project. These items are normally charged directly to the
department, division or project on an item-by-item basis. Examples of direct charges are
project staff, materials and services used by the staff and vehicles assigned directly to
staff.
Indirect costs are those labor, services or supplies that benefit more than one
department, division or project. The exact benefits to specific areas are difficult or
impossible to ascribe to a single activity. Examples would be support costs such as the
heat, light and rental of a multi-use building, personnel costs, finance costs and
administration costs.
The purpose of allocating indirect costs is to (1) capture overhead costs in federal
reimbursement programs such as road projects and housing projects, (2) to properly
charge enterprise funds for services received from the general fund, and (3) assure that
full costs are known when fees are established. In Santa Monica, indirect costs have
little day-to-day use outside of the three areas above. The managers of enterprise funds
seem to take an active interest in indirect charges because they affect the rates and
charges. Since the City wishes to have a full cost recovery program for fees, indirect
costs are important for this current study.
The .federal guidelines for allocating costs to federal programs are outlined in the
Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87. Local governments do
not have prescribed guidelines for charges to enterprise funds or full cost allocations for
fee setting purposes. However, most jurisdictions .apply two key principles in the
allocation process: (1) to establish policies that define direct and indirect costs and an
allocation methodology and (2) to apply them consistently and uniformly to all activities.
One major difference between local government allocations and federal allowances is
that federal guidelines do not allow the charging of general government activities such
as the legislative and executive activities of the City Council and the City Manager.
Another difference is that they do not allow other general types of government services
normally provided to the general public, such as fire and police, unless provided for as
direct cost in program activities.
Citywide Indirect Cost Allocation
The City has an indirect cost allocation program that. .allocates the central service
departments to each department and most divisions. The City currently calculates the
t~
indirect costs based upon the prior year audited results. For example the FY 2001-02
budget is prepared with indirect cost allocation calculations based upon the FY 1999-00
audit, which is completed in November of 2000. Thus, the calculations begin at least
one year late and by the completion of the current budget year, actually represent
calculations that are two years old. The result is that the City under-estimates the
indirect cost allocations.
The calculation of the projected indirect costs increase requires the examination of two
variables: (1) the percentage increase in budget and (2) the historical difference in
indirect costs allocated versus the actual indirect costs computed six months after the
close of a fiscal year. Table 1 shows the growth in City expenditures by two primary
departments involved in this study as well as growth of the overall City budget. Based
upon an average loss of 6% per year of indirect costs and a lag time of applying the
cost of an average of 18 months, an estimated indirect cost adjustment would be 1.5
times 6%, which equals 9%. As a result, this cost ahalysis increases citywide indirect
allocated costs by 9%. The indirect cost allocation program that allocates the central
service departments to the Planning and Community Development Department is
shown in Table 2.
Table 1-Comparison of Allocated Indirect Costs
Fiscal Year Actual Indirect Costs Allocated Indirect Costs Difference % Loss
1996-97 $25,674,208 $23,876,073 $1,798,135 7.53%
1997-98 $27,035,428 $24,447,060 $2,588,368 10.59%
1998-99 $25,311,682 $25,674,208 -$362,526 -1.41%
1999-00 $29,009,860 $27,035,428 $1,974,432 7.30%
2000-01 Available Nov 01 $32,610,941
Total Four Year Lost Indirect $5,998,409
Avera e Yearl $1,499,602 6.00%
18
Table 2- FY 01/02 Citywide Cost Allocations
Planning and Community Development Department
Central Service Departrnents &
Char es
Administration
Plannin Building &
Safe Transportation
Mana ement Traffic -
O erations Parking
Authori
Basis of Allocations
Building Use $1,836 Share of Sq. Ft. Area
Equipment Use $867 $1,748 $871 $31,445 $21,418 Equipment Purchase Fy
1999-2000
Insurance Auto
Health & Dental $0 $0 Authorized Full Time
Positions
Audit Expense $260 $617 $611 $736 $351 $464
Modified Total Direct Costs
Retirement $34,319 $88,309 $102,627 $66,505 $44,753 Salaries and Wages
EPWM, Administration $18,836 $18,836 Time Records.
EPWM, City Hall Maintenance $15,557 $53,610 - $30,568 $32,182 Sq. Ft. Space Used
EPWM, Public Facilities $5,298 $19,730 $2,560 $15,551 $50,801 Actual Direct Labor
Mayor, City Council $16,655 $68,134 $9,085 $43,909 $6,057 $1,514 Number Council Meetings
Agenda Items
City Manager $10,195 $23,303 _$11,651. $16,021 $13,107 $10,195 Time/Records/Assignments
R & ES General $7,035 $28,776 $3,837 $18,545 $2,558 $639 Number Council Meetings
Agenda Items
R & ES Council Support $13,818 $56,525 . $7,537 $36,427 $5,024 $1,256 Number Council Meetings
Agenda Items
City Clerk, Support $5,280 $84,477 Storage Bozes/Microfilm
Magazines
Finance, Payroll $1,958 $10,571 $12,137 $7,243 $6,264 Authorized Full Time
Positions
Finance, Accounts Payable $2,160 $5,624 $3,282 $6,123 $3,926 $489 Number of Warrants Issued
Finance, Treasury Receipts $10,499 $10,974 $25,653 $21,134 Cash Receipts
Finance, General Ledger $3,461 $6,221 $8,140 $9,814 $4,684 $6,186 Total Expenditures
Finance, Collection $3,228 Portion of Collections
Information Systems ~ $40,544 $99,519 $217,938 $71,875 $23,958 $23,958 Time Records/Assignments
City Attorney $9,461 $425,727 $89,875 $28,382 $28,382 $9,461 Time Records/Assignments
Personnel, General - $3,661 $15,506 $18;664 $10,552 $12,132 Authorized Full Time
Positions
Personnel, Recruitment $67 $21,079 $15,692 $21,965 $32,998 Weighted Number of
Employees Recruited
Purchasing $3,198 $5,788 $1,066 $2,893 $9,141 $305 Number of Purchase
Orders
Warehouse, Stores/Services $40 $635 $221 $498 $4,212
I Share of Dollaf Value of
ssuances
Allocation Per Plan $168,554 $929,471 $642,983 $452,164 $255,188 $129,630
Indirect Adjustment 9% $15,170 $83,652 $57,868 $40,695 $22,967 $11,667
Total Allocated $183,724 $1,013,123 $700,851 $492,859. $278,155 $141,297
19
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COSTS
Organization Overview
The primary department responsible for the development process in Santa Monica is
the Planning and Community Development Department as shown in Figure 2. The key
functions are shaded on the organization chart. The City Planning Division issues
planning permits. Building permits are issued by Building and Safety. Building and
Safety also handles code enforcement. Transportation Management provides
transportation analysis for many of the permits. The Traffic Operations Division and
Parking Authority are not involved with permits.
Figure 2
Planning and Community Development Department
DIRECTOROF PLANNING &
COMMUN Il'Y DEVELOPM FNT
Administration
TraiFc Operations
I Parking Authority i
Administration Division
The Administration Division provides organizational support and coordination services
for the Department in terms of budget preparation, City Council staff report preparation,
payroll, citizen complaints, and a variety of special studies and projects. The Division
includes 5 positions.
Since the Administration Divisior coordinates and manages all divisions within the
Community Development Department, costs can be allocated to the other divisions
within the Planning and Community Development Department.
The total Administration Division costs are shown in Table 3. The Administrative
Division costs are allocated to other divisions within Planning and Community
Development on the basis of employees in each division as shown.
20
Building and Safety Division
The Building and Safety Division enforces City ordinances and State laws regulating
construction activity and the maintenance of building and property in the interest of
community health., safety, and environmental quality. Division staff inspects construction
work and buildings to verify conformity with zoning, fire prevention, structural and other
City and State legal requirements. This division provides public information on current
construction standards; coordinates the City plan review process; maintains City permit
and other legal construction records; and administers technical appeals. Division staff
represents the City in code development organizations and provides support staff #or
the City's Building and Safety Commission, Accessibility Appeals Board and the
Nuisance Abatement Board. The Division includes 36.0 positions.
Table 4 divides the Building and Safety Division employees between indirect and direct
employees and shows all of the total costs of the Building and Safety Division. It
includes the allocation of indirect costs from the City's cost allocation plan for support
departments such as finance, and personnel as well as management departments such
as the City Manager. The department's approved budget for salaries, services and
supplies and capital expenditures is also included. Contract plan check costs have
been deducted. Table 4 also shows the total costs in the Building & Safety Division and
allocates them to the positions that provide direct services. The total includes salary and
fringe benefits as well as the total division overhead costs. The total costs are then
divided by billable hours to determine a fully burdened hourly rate. This is the rate used
to determine the actual costs of permits. The cost of the fee is the fully burdened hourly
rate multiplied by the time. required to process the permit or carry out the inspection.
zi
Table 3
Planning & Community Development Department
Administration Costs
Indirect Em to ees
Position
Number Salary
Ran a Fringe
Benefits Position
Total Division
Total
Director 1 130,344 47,480 177,824 177,824
Assistant Director 2 89,856 30,543 120,399 240,799
Senior Administrative Anal st 1 73,824 23,481 .97,305 97,305
Executive Administrative Assistant 1 54,552 15,653 .70,205 70,205
Total 5 $ 586,134
Overhead Calculation
Item Cost
Administration Division Allocation of Cit Central Services Overhead Table A-1 183,724
Administration Division Direct Su Ties and Ex enses FY 02/03 Annual Bud et 316,200
Administration Division Ca ital Ex enditures-FY02/03 Annual Bud et -
Total Administration Labor 586,134
Total Overhead $1,086,058
Distribution of Overhead to Divisions
Division Number of Em to ees Percents a Cost
Cit Plannin 27 28% 299,220
Buildin and Safet 36 37% 398,960
Trans ortation Mana ement 20 20% 221,644
Traffic O erations 15 15% 166,233
Total 98 100% $1,086,058
22
Table 4-Building & Safety Division Costs
Indirect Employees
Position
Number
Sala Ran a Fringe
Benefits Position
Total
Total Cost
Buildin Officer 1 .103,524 33,711 137,235 137,235
Assistant Buildin Official 1 95,424 21,921 117,345 117,345
Plan Check Su ervisor 1 86,760 20,800 107,560 107,560
Su ervisin Ins ector 1 71,580 20,303 91,883 91,883
Senior Administrative Anal st 1 70,128 22,775 92,903 92,903
Permit Su ervisor 1 70,128 18,649 88,777 88,777
Code Com liance Su ervisor 1 68,004 18,373 86,377 86,377
Administrative Anal st 1 57,996 20,456 78,452 78,452
Buildin & Safet Assistant 5 41,208 14,177 55,385 276,925
Subtotal 13 $1,077,456
Direct Em to ees
Position
Number
Sala Ran a Fringe
Benefits Position
Total
Total Cost
Senior Plan Check En ineer 3 75,588 23,817 99,405 298,215
Plan Check En ineer 2 67,464 22,264 89,728 179,457
Senior Buildin Ins ector 1 64,764 18,084 82,848 82,848
Senior Comb. Buildin Ins ector 6 64,764 18,084 82,848 497,088
Senior Code Com liance Officer 3 64,764 17,433 82,197 246,591
Code Com liance Officer 4 52,560 16,084 68,644 274,576
Permits ecialist 4 46,992 15,142 62,134 248,536
Subtotal 23 $ 1,827,312
Distribution of Overhead to Direct Emplo ees
Item Cost
Division Allocation of Central Services Overhead 700,851
Division Allocation from Administration Division 398,960
Division Direct Su lies and Ex enses FY 02!03 Annual Bud et 533,100
Less Confracf Professional Services 347,000
Division Ca ital Ex enditures FY 02/03 Annual Bud et 23,500
Indirect Division Labor 1,077,456
Total Overhead Costs $ 2,386,868
Number of Direct Division Em to ees 23
Cost of Division Overhead er FTE $ 103,777
Hour! Rate for Direct Em to ees
Position Salary &
Frin a Division
Overhead
Total Billable
Hours
Cost Per Hour
Senior Code Com liance Officer 82,197 103,777 185,974 1,716 $108
Code Com liance Officer 68,644 103,777 172,421 1,716 $100
23
CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Overview
Building and Safety Division includes the following staff dedicated to code enforcement:
• One Code Compliance Supervisor
• One Senior Administrative Analyst-Code Compliance
• Three Senior Code Compliance Officers
• Four Code Compliance Officers
• Two Building and Safety Assistants
The annual number of complaints received for fiscal year 2002-2003 was 1,821. The
sources of the potential code violation complaints come from the general public, either
by phone or letter, or from various staff as they travel throughout the City.
The City of Santa Monica proposes to consider a permit monitoring process for a
number of discretionary planning permits types over the lifetime of the permit's tenure.
The City also wishes to develop a cost for the performance of the permit monitoring
process, in order to be in a position to recover this added operational cost. The following
describes the process and the methodology utilized in the development of this process
and its associated costs.
Identification of Permit Types and Annual Intake Volumes
The following planning permit types shown in Table 6 were identified by staff as the
permit types that require monitoring and the volume of these permit applications
processed during an average year.
Table 5-Permits to be Monitored
Permit T e Annual
Volume
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 13
Performance Standards Permit (PSP) 5
Development Review Permit (DRP) 7
Total 25
Work Load Factor Development
In order to identify and apply a reasonable cost to perform a specific function and/or
process, it is first necessary to develop the hours required to accomplish the entire
process. The methodology or technique most frequently used by industrial engineers for
24
determining total required hours for a process that involves a number of sequential
operations and varying frequencies and volumes is called Frequency Factoring.
Basically this technique requires the identification of:
^ The activities (work) performed at each step or phase of the process.
• The total number of times (volume) that the process will be performed during. a
given or specific time period.
^ The number of times that each activity will be performed at each phase or step of
the process and related to the volume (Frequency of Occurrence).
^ The required hours necessary to perform one cycle of the .specific activity
(Required Hours).
• The calculation of the factored hours for that activity, which is calculated by
multiplying the frequency of that activity by the required hours for that activity and
dividing the total by the volume number.
The totaling of the factored hours produces a number that, when multiplied by the total
volume, will provide adequate staffing hours to process that volume of work and
account for the variable nature of the frequencies of occurrence.
Table 6- Reauired Hours Per Inspection Cvcle
Descri tion of Activit Frequency of
Occurrence Required
Hours Factored Staff
Hours
Initial Inspection
Review file and data 100% 2.00 2.00
Set up appointment- 100% 0.50 0.50
Inspect 100% 2.00 2.00
Send Compliance Letter/ Bill 100% 0.50 0.50
Total Required Hours-Compl iant Sites 5.00 5.00
Follow-up Inspections
Document Violations 100% 1.00 1.00
Set up appointment 100% 0.50 0.50
Re-inspect 100% 1.00 1.00
Send Letter/Prepare Bill 100% 0.50 0.50
Subtotal-additional for noncompliant sites 3.00
Total Required Hours-Noncompliant Sites 8.00 8.00
25
Table 7-Averaae Cost Per Inspection Cycle
Item Cost per
Hour* Average Staff
Hours Total Cost
of Service
Initial Inspection-All Sites $100 5.00 $500
Re-inspection-Noncompliant Sites $100 3.00 $300
*Code Compliance Officer
Work Load Volume Computation
Staff estimates that approximately 500 conditional use, development review and
performance standards permit will require inspections each year and this number will
grow at an average rate of 25 permits per year. On the average, a Code Compliance
Officer processes approximately 250 cases a year. The number of dedicated staff will
have to increase periodically to handle the workload.
Table 8-Number of Inspection Cycles Per Year
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6
500
525
Number of Inspection
C
l
f
P
i
di 550
yc
es
or
er
o
c
Monitoring 575
600
625
Table 9- Number of FTE Required
Years 1 2 3 4 5 6
2.0
Number of FTE. Code 2.1
Compliance Officers 2.2
for Periodic 2.3
Monitoring 2.4
2.5
Cost Per Permit
Estimated staff hours are averaged at 5.OO hours per permit for initial inspections and
3.00 hours for follow-up inspections when violations are found. Therefore, compliant
sites would require 5.00 hours on average and noncompliant sites 8.00 hours if they
correct all violations after one notice. At the cost of $100 per hour, monitoring of a
compliant. site would cost the City an average of $500 to perform and the cost for a
noncompliant site, an average of $800. Some permit holders may require additional
inspections if compliance is not obtained after the first re-inspection. For cases where
26
user fees are not paid on time, City costs are estimated to increase ten percent (10%)
on average for the necessary collection and follow thru efforts.
Table 10 Proposed Fees
Fee Item Amount
Code Enforcement Inspection Fees
Monitorin Ins ection of Commercial Uses
1 Initial Ins ections
Conditional Use Permit $500
Develo ment Review Permit $500
Performance Standards Permit $500
2 Noncom liance Fees-Each Additional Re-ins ection
Conditional Use Permit $300
Develo ment Review Permit $300
Performance Standards Permit $300
add 10% for late payments (over 30 days from inspection)
27
Adopted and approved this 25th day of November, 2003.
'~.
ichard Bloom, Mayor
I, Maria Stewart, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify
that the#oregoing Resolution No. 9905 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of
the Santa Monica City Council held on the 25th day of November, 2003, by the
following vote:
Ayes: Council members: Mayor Bloom, Mayor Pro Tem McKeown,
Genser, O'ConnoC, Holbrook, Katz
Noes: Council members: None
Abstain: Council members: None
Absent: Council members: Feinstein
ATTEST:
~-
Maria M. Stewart, Ci y Clerk
3