R5G-Ordinances Modifying Building Fire Planning And Public Works FeesCOMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Ordinances Modifying The Building, Fire, Planning And Public Works Departments' Fees Related To The Building
Develo ment Review Process lm lamented On Februa 1, 2010.
K~}'_ Intended Outcome Supf!orted:
Strengthen Internal Controls; Maximize Efficient Delivery Of Services; Increase Community Satisfaction With City
Government; Minimize Taxes I Ensure Expenditure Trends Are Sustainable Over The Long Term; Improve The City's
Overall Financial Health And Maintain Overall Bond RatinQ
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): In the 2012 Community Satisfaction survey, which covered
the period of 2009 through February 2012, 47% of businesses described their experience with the Building
Department as positive, and 58% gave a positive evaluation of the department for overall satisfaction. 54% of
businesses perceived the Building Department as being open to hearing their concerns. 50% of businesses thought
the Building Department's inspections were consistent over time or believed that the inspections were fair. 70% of
businesses rated Building Department employees as courteous and professional and the same percentage thought
employees had proper training and knowledge.
Issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the ordinances amending various fees related to the Building
Develo ment Review Process in the Cit of Miami Beach?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On January 13, 2010, the City Commission approved four ordinances for the Building, Fire, Planning and Public
Works departments related to the fees for the Building Development Process. These ordinances went into effect on
February 1, 2010 and provided a complete overhaul of the fee structure for the above mentioned departments.
Additional changes were adopted by the City Commission in September 2011 that went into effect on October 1,
2011, including reductions to the fees for certain permit types, a continuation of discounts for permit fees related to
certain permit types, a waiver of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments for 2011 and 2012, and the
introduction of a cap on permit fees at 10% of the calculated cost of construction.
The Administration had stated that it would return to the Committee for additional discussion after the 2011 changes
were adopted. The Administration held discussions with the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (Committee)
in July and August, 2012 regarding the following proposals, and the Committee recommended that they be forwarded
to the full City Commission for further consideration: 1) Fees related to Planning and Public Works' efforts in the
Alteration/Remodeling permit types should be reduced, 2) Discounts should continue past September 30, 2012,
3) The CPI increase for 2013 pursuant to the existing ordinance should not be waived, and 4) Fees related to certain
permit types should be revised, based on the evaluation of the 10% cap on permit fees and further evaluation of
permit fees in general, and that the CPI increase should not apply to these permit types.
Additionally, there is a scrivener's error in Section 15-42 "Adjusted Rates" in the City's Code of Ordinances relative to
the fees for the Planning Department where the language refers just to that particular section but should refer to the
Article, not the Section.
The Administration is recommendinQ that the City Commission adopt the ordinance with the proposed revisions.
Board Recommendation:
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee heard this item at its July 10, 2012 and August22, 2012 meetings and
recommended that the Ci Commission ado t the ordinances.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
~ 1
2
I Total
Financial Impact Summary: A cumulative loss of permit revenue approximately $295,000 annually for the Building
Development Process departments (Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works).
AGENDA 1 TE M ---"f<_$_(;.. __
q-JZ.-{ DATE ____ _ MIAMI BEACH
5
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Co'Tsion
Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager /4/-•
September 12, 2012
SUBJECT: ORDINANCES MODIFYING THE BUILDING, FIRE, PLANNING AND PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENTS FEES RELATED TO THE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS IMPLEMENTED ON FEBRUARY 1, 2010.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the four ordinances
amending various fees related to the Building Development Process in the City of Miami
Beach.
INTRODUCTION
On January 13, 2010, the City Commission approved four ordinances for the Building, Fire,
Planning and Public Works departments related to the fees for the Building Development
Process.
These ordinances went into effect on February 1, 2010 and provided a complete overhaul of
the fee structure for the above mentioned departments. Additional changes were adopted
by the City Commission in September 2011 that went into effect on October 1, 2011,
including reductions to the fees for certain permit types, a continuation of discounts for
permit fees related to certain permit types, a waiver of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
adjustments for 2011 and 2012, and the introduction of a cap on permit fees at 10% of the
calculated cost of construction.
The Administration had stated that it would return to the Committee for additional discussion
after the 2011 changes were adopted. The Administration held discussions with the Finance
and Citywide Projects Committee (Committee) in July and August, 2012 regarding the
following proposals, and the Committee recommended that they be forwarded to the full City
Commission for further consideration.
• Fees related to Planning and Public Works' efforts in the Alteration/Remodeling
permit types should be reduced,
• Discounts should continue past September 30, 2012, and become permanent
rather than roll over from year to year,
• The CPI increase for 2013 pursuant to the existing ordinance should not be
waived, and
• Fees related to certain permit types should be revised downward, based on the
evaluation of the 1 0% cap on permit fees and further evaluation of permit fees in
general, and that the CPI increase should not apply to these permit types.
6
City Commission Memorandum
September 12, 2012
Building Development Process Fees
Page 2 of9
Additionally, there is a scrivener's error in Section 15-42 "Adjusted Rates" in the City's Code
of Ordinances relative to the fees for the Planning Department where the language refers
just to that particular section but should refer to the Article, not the Section. The
Administration is recommending the language in the Ordinance be changed for accuracy.
BACKGROUND
Building Development Process
The Building Development Process ("Process") in the City of Miami Beach includes the
Building Department, the Fire Department's Fire Prevention Division, the Planning
Department and the Public Works' Engineering Division.
The Building Department provides process intake, routing, billing, and computer support for
the entire Process. The Building Department staff conducts plans review and inspections for
plumbing, structural, building, electrical, governmental compliance, elevator, accessibility
and mechanical trades as required by the different permit types for compliance with Florida
Building Code as well as the Miami Beach City Code. Additionally, the Building Department
reviews permit applications for compliance with outside regulatory agencies.
The Fire Department's Fire Prevention Division is involved in the majority of building permits
issued by the City, with the exception of single-family homes. A Fire Department fee is
collected for each building permit corresponding to the Fire Department's review and
inspection.
The Planning Department serves as staff to the City's Planning Board, Board of Adjustment,
Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board, and Single Family Residential Review
Panel. Depending on the scope of the project, a new development is required to receive
approval from one or more of these Boards. The Planning Department processes
applications, reviews them and prepares recommendations to all of the above Boards. Fees
are assessed for the various planning applications according to a fee schedule contained
within the City Code. The Planning Department also reviews all building permits for
compliance with the City's land development regulations, comprehensive plan and
consistency with architectural review guidelines and preservation appropriateness criteria.
This zoning review is required to ensure compliance with existing legislation, zoning
requirements, and state growth management requirements.
The Public Works Department Engineering Division staff conducts plan reviews and
inspections for all construction activities that occur within the public right-of-way (streets,
roadways, waterways, alleys and sidewalks), public property and easements. The Public
Works Department also performs plan review activities supporting a variety of Building
Department permits on private property that will connect and/or will have potential impacts to
City-owned utilities, right-of-way and/or utility easements.
Further, the Building, Fire, and Planning Departments participate in the Certificate of
Occupancy or Completion process that allows for the use and occupancy of the structure
based on certifying that the use is permitted and that the structure is in compliance with
applicable City Codes.
7
City Commission Memorandum
September 12, 2012
Building Development Process Fees
Page 3 of9
2009 Building Development Process Fees Study
In mid-2009, the City initiated a study of costs and fees related to the Process with the
consulting firm Maximus Consulting Services Inc. ("Maximus"). The primary focus of the
study was to develop a simplified fee structure and associated fee levels for services
performed by the Building Department in enforcing the Florida Building Code, as well as
services performed by the Fire, Planning, and Public Works Departments in enforcing other
Federal, State and City Codes related to building permits.
On January 13, 2010, the City Commission approved four ordinances for the Building, Fire,
Planning and Public Works departments related to the fees for the Building Development
Process, as outlined in the Maximus study. These ordinances went into effect on February
1, 2010 and provided a complete overhaul of the fee structure for the above mentioned
departments.
At the time of implementation, there were increases in the fees related to the Process for the
Fire, Planning, and Public Works Departments. These were offset by discounts in the
Building Department fees so that, in the aggregate, the total combined fees charged to the
development community were to remain at current levels. Decreases in Building
Department revenues were partially replaced by previously set aside Building Department
reserves in FY 2009/1 0 and are budgeted to be offset in FY 2011/12 so that costs related to
enforcing the Florida Building Code continue to be offset by Building revenues. Subsidies
from other general fund revenue sources were $725,000 in FY 2009/10, and $1 million in FY
2010/11. It is important to note that discounts were applied to fees to achieve three (3)
objectives: 1) ensure that permits are pulled for small projects. If permit fees represent a
large or excessive percent of the project costs, it will discourage customers from pulling
permits; 2) provide lower fees for residential projects; and 3) incentivize environmental
projects.
In 2011, the Administration presented additional permit fee changes to the Committee for
consideration. These included additional reductions to the fees for certain permit types, a
continuation of discounts for permit fees related to certain permit types, a waiver of the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases for 2011 and 2012, and the introduction of a cap on
permit fees at 10% of the calculated cost of construction. The Committee recommended
these additional changes, and they were adopted by the City Commission and made
effective on October 1, 2011.
During the discussions regarding the 2011 changes, the Administration noted that further
changes were still being considered and would be brought back to the Committee for
consideration. Discussions were held at the July 10, 2012 and August 22, 2012 Committee
meetings, where the Committee recommended that the actions be brought forth to the full
City Commission for ratification.
Current Discussion Points
At this time, the Administration is proposing revising the permit fees as follows:
• Discounts should continue past September 30, 2012
When the current fee structure was adopted, there were some discounts built into the
fee structure that were set to expire on September 30, 2011. Last year, these were
extended and are now set to expire on September 30, 2012.
8
City Commission Memorandum
September 12, 2012
Building Development Process Fees
Page 4 of9
The original intent of these discounts were:
1) To ensure that permits are pulled for small projects. If permit fees represent
a large or excessive percent of the project costs, it will discourage customers
from pulling permits;
2) To provide lower fees for residential projects; and
3) To incentivize environmental projects.
The Administration is recommending that the ordinance be changed such that the
discounts remain permanently in effect.
• Fees related to Planning and Public Works' efforts in the Alteration/Remodeling
permit types should be reduced
As a result of concerns that were raised by certain segments of the development
community, as well as some concerns raised by staff, regarding the fee amounts and
administrative processes related to the fees, the Administration brought Maximus
back to review the status of the permit fee implementation to answer whether or not
the City met its original objectives, if staff was applying the fee structure correctly,
and to review the issues being encountered and identify appropriate solutions. A
copy of the Maxim us report is attached as Attachment A.
Maximus' re-evaluation of the City's implementation revealed that the City's new
permit fee structure based on square feet is more simple than the previous schedule,
which was based on construction cost. Maximus spoke at length with Building
Department staff to determine if the staff was feeing permit applications correctly and
found that indeed they were. With regard to whether or not the Building
Development Process departments were recovering more in fees than costs for
operation, Maximus determined that the departments were under-recovering their
actual costs. Fee collection was actually less than what Maximus originally
projected, and not covering the costs of the departments related to the Building
Development Process.
Based on discussions Maximus had with staff, Maximus proposed refining plan
review and permit inspection times for the Alteration/Remodel permit types by the
Planning and Public Works Departments.
It should be noted that the levels of effort suggested for adjustment are not
significant components of the overall fees. Maxim us estimates that the impact to the
permit fees collected will result in a savings to customers in the amount of
approximately $493,000. This amount will fluctuate depending on the number of
permits applied for, the amount of square footage being renovated, and other factors
outside of the City's control. The impact to the Planning Department Permit Fee
revenue was more significant, estimated at approximately $412,000, and the impact
to the Public Works Department budget is approximately $81,000, which will have to
be replaced by General Fund dollars to completely fund the operations.
The Administration recommends revising the permittees for the Planning and Public
Works Departments for Alteration/Remodeling permit types in an effort to provide
9
City Commission Memorandum
September 12, 2012
Building Development Process Fees
Page 5 of9
more accurate permit fees and additional savings to the City's Building Development
Process customers.
• The CPI increase for 2013 pursuant to the existing ordinance should not be
waived
The current ordinances require the fees to be administratively adjusted annually to
reflect increase( s) or decrease( s) in the Consumer Price Index for Consumers in the
Southeast United States for all items, unless otherwise directed by the City
Commission. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments for 2011 and 2012 were
waived by the City Commission, finding it to be in the best interest of the City and the
public.
As a point of information for the City Commission's consideration, the CPI for the
southern region for all items from October 2010 through October 2011 was an
increase of 3. 7%. This means that the fees will be increased by 3. 7%. The
estimated impact on the Building Development Process departments' FY 2012/13
Current Service Level (CSL) revenues is approximately $404,000 if enacted effective
October 15, 2012. Further, the preliminary estimated subsidy for the FY 2012/13
CSL budget from non-Building General Fund revenues is approximately $1.4 million,
including indirect costs. Without the use of Building Department reserves set aside in
prior years, the subsidy would have been 2.9 million.
The Administration is recommending allowing the CPI increases of 3.7% take effect
effective October 15, 2012. It should be noted that the respective sections of the
City's Code of Ordinances dealing with the fees associated with all four ( 4)
departments' role in the Process allow for the fees to be "administratively adjusted
annually", and not changed by ordinance. However, since so many other changes
are proposed, the Administration felt it necessary to include the adjustment in the
attached ordinances to eliminate confusion for the codifier, staff and customers.
• Fees related to certain permit types should be revised based on the 10% cap
on permit fees and further evaluation of permit fees in general
As part of the revisions to the Building Department fees adopted in September 2011,
effective October 1 , 2011 , there is a 1 0% cap on permit fees. Section 14-61 (p) of
the City's Code of Ordinances requires the Administration to reevaluate the permit
fees of any permit application where the permit fees, not including any outside
agency fees or surcharges, are greater than 10% of the value of construction as
declared on the permit application. Excluded from this process are permit
applications where the value of construction is less than $1,000 or the permit fee is
the minimum permit fee.
The reevaluation process consists of a plan reviewer using industry standard cost
estimating resources to confirm whether the value of construction as stated on the
permit application is in line with the construction industry. The Administration has
determined that the level of effort to reevaluate the construction values for all
applications triggered by the 10% cap would detract from the plan review level of
service if conducted by existing City staff. So, at the current time, this reevaluation
process is being conducted by supplemental staff hired through an agreement
between the City and a staffing provider, at a cost of approximately $140,000 per
10
City Commission Memorandum
September 12, 2012
Building Development Process Fees
Page 6 of9
year. It should be noted that this supplemental staffer is also a licensed inspector,
and can be called on to provide other functions as needed by the Department, so the
$140,000 is not entirely attributable to the 10% rule. However a very conservative
estimate is that approximately 55% of this inspector's time is utilized in conducting
the reevaluations.
Based on the plans submitted with the permit application, the evaluator uses RS
Means data, a widely accepted provider of construction costing, to determine the
industry standard value for the work described (determined value). The permit fees
are evaluated against the determined value to see if the fees are still greater than
10% of the determined cost.
• If the permit fees are less than 1 0% of the determined cost, no refund is
processed.
• If the fees are still more than 1 0% of the determined cost, a refund is
processed after the project construction is complete and passes all required
inspections, assuming that the refund meets the requirements of Section 14-
62(b) of the City's Code of Ordinances (refunds must exceed $100 in order
to be refunded).
• If a construction value cannot be determined by the above-indicated
resources, typically either because plans are not required as part of the
application submittal or RS Means doesn't have an appropriate category, the
actual level of effort for plan review and inspection shall be calculated and
charged, but shall not exceed the originally calculated fee at time of permit
application. When this occurs, the level of effort costs cannot be calculated
until the construction is complete, so a determination as to what the permit
fee will be and if any refund is due to the customer cannot be made until after
all inspections are complete and the project has received final approval.
The 10% permit fee cap has been in place since October 1, 2011. Between October
1, 2011 and July 31, 2012, there were 11,172 permit applications approved. Of
those, only 1,481 (13.26%) triggered a 10% cap evaluation. The permit fees
associated with the over 11 ,000 approved permit applications exceeded $8.6 million.
If the permit fees associated with the permits that triggered the 10% cap were all
lowered to no more than 10% of the stated value of construction, the potential
reduction in permit fees would be approximately $511,000, which represents
approximately 6% of permit fees collected.
As of August 1, 2012, 1 ,434, or approximately 97%, of the permits that triggered a
10% cap reevaluation had been evaluated. Of those, 291 were approved for a
refund. This represents less than 20% of all permits triggered for reevaluation, and
less than 3% of all approved permit applications. Approximately $142,000 has been
approved for refunds back to the customers based on the 291 permits. This
represents 1.65% of the permit fees collected for the 11,172 permit applications
approved as of July 31, 2012. Of those remaining to be reviewed, the maximum
amount of any potential refunds was approximately $53,000. This number will be
11
City Commission Memorandum
September 12, 2012
Building Development Process Fees
Page 7 of9
revised as reevaluation takes place.
There are still approximately 180 permits that have been evaluated, but for which an
industry standard construction cost could not be determined, either because the
permit application does not require a plan submittal, or because RS Means does not
include a category or methodology for costing that kind of work out. The permit fees
for this work will be determined based on actual level of effort, but shall not exceed
the permit fee costs calculated at time of permit application. The total cumulative
amount of any potential refunds is approximately $125,000.
There are approximately 960 permits (approximately 65% of those triggered for a
10% cap evaluation) that have been reevaluated for which no refund is due to the
customer because the permit fees calculated at time of application are less than
10% of the value of work as determined using industry standard cost estimating
methodologies, as opposed to the value submitted at the time of application by the
applicant.
The sum of the refunds approved to date, the maximum exposure of those permit
fees yet to be reevaluated, and those that will be determined by level of effort is
$320,000. This equates to 3.7% of the approximately $8.6 million collected in
permits fees for those permits approved during the stated timeframe. It should be
stated that evaluating these plans, determining the industry standard construction
cost, and approving and processing any potential refunds is a labor intensive
process. The cost of supplemental staff reevaluate all triggered plans is
conservatively estimated to be approximately $77,000. Staff time related to
reviewing the determinations and processing the refunds has not been captured, but
has been time consuming.
Recommendations for Permit Fee Changes Related to 10% Permit Fee Cap
With the analysis of the 1 0% permit fee cap impact on revenue, staff has also reviewed the
types of permits most frequently resulting in a refund after reevaluation of the permit fees. It
is important to focus on those permit types approved for a refund, as those are the ones
where the reevaluation is reflecting that current permit fees are indeed greater than 10% of
the industry standard value of construction.
The five (5) permit types that resulted in the most refund approvals are provided here in
order from highest number of approvals to lowest. These five (5) permit types alone
represent approximately 70% of the permits where the reevaluation resulted in a refund
being issued to the customer.
• Alteration/Remodeling Permits-54 of 291 (18.56%)
• Alteration/Remodeling Condo Permits-46 of 291 (15.81%)
• Low Voltage Electrical Permits -44 of 291 ( 15.12%)
• Plumbing Alteration/Remodeling Permits -33 of 291 ( 11.34%)
• Partial Demolition Permits -25 of 291 (8.59%)
As was discussed at the July 10, 2012 Committee meeting, the Administration has already
proposed changes to the Alteration/Remodeling and Alteration/Remodeling Condo permit
types, by refining the fees for the Planning and Public Works Departments on
alteration/remodeling work. It is anticipated that these changes will reduce the
12
City Commission Memorandum
September 12, 2012
Building Development Process Fees
Page 8 of9
Alteration/Remodeling and Alteration/Remodeling Condo permits fees significantly enough
to no longer trigger a reevaluation on the majority of these types of permits.
With regard to the Low Voltage Electrical Permits, Plumbing Alteration/Remodeling Permits
and Partial Demolition permits, the Administration is proposing permit fee refinement as
identified in Appendix A of the City's Code of Ordinances, as outlined in the attached
summary of proposed fee recommendations (Exhibit 2), which outlines the permit fees for
the Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works Departments. Again, it is anticipated that
these reductions will reduce permit fees on these permit types significantly enough to have
permit fees remain under 10% of the determined value of construction for the majority of
these permit types. In the case of Low Voltage Electrical Permits, a fee will no longer apply
to these applications when they are submitted as part of a Master Permit, which will result in
further savings to customers.
In addition to the top five (5) permit types approved for refund, the Administration is
proposing refinements to the following permit types. These permit types represent another
approximately 7% of the permit types approved for a refund, which if approved, will address
approximately 77% of the permits approved for a refund.
• Awning/Canopy/Patio Cover Permit
• Signage Permit (both electric and non-electric)
• Repair Existing Elevator Permit
• Generators/Solar Systems
• Solar/Alternative Power
• Painting
• Installation of Plumbing Fixtures
The estimated financial impact of these fee reductions on an annual basis would be
approximately $206,000, not including the Alteration/Remodel changes described
previously. It should be noted that the Administration does not recommend that the
proposed CPI increase be applied to the permit categories outlined for revision above.
Additionally, there is a scrivener's error in Section 15-42 "Adjusted Rates" in the City's Code
of Ordinances relative to the fees for the Planning Department where the language refers
just to that particular section but should refer to the Article, not the section. The
Administration is recommending the language in the Ordinance be changed for accuracy.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED REVISIONS
Based on the projections developed by Maximus and staff, it is anticipated that the fiscal
impact for the revisions proposed herein are as follows, assuming similar permit activity:
Revision (Savinas )/Cost
Planning Department Alteration/Remodeling Fee Revision $(412,000)
Public Works Department Alteration/Remodeling Fee Revision $( 81,000)
CPI Increase $ 404,000
Fee Revisions Based on 1 0% Cap Evaluation and Further ~(206,000)
Evaluation of Permit Fees in General
Net Change $(295,000)
13
City Commission Memorandum
September 12, 2012
Building Development Process Fees
Page 9 of9
CONCLUSION
The Administration will continue to further evaluate permit fees for those where refinements
are recommended, as well as the remaining permit fee types, on a regular basis and bring
further recommendations to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for review and
discussion.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission revise the scrivener's error in
Section 15-42 of the City's Code of Ordinances, and revise fees related to the Building
Development Process as described in this memorandum, Exhibits 1 and 2, and the attached
ordinances, including:
• Fees related to Planning and Public Works' efforts in the Alteration/Remodeling
permit types should be reduced, as referenced in Exhibit 1, and
• Discounts should continue past September 30, 2012, rather than rolling over
from year to year,
• The CPI increase for 2013 pursuant to the existing ordinance should not be
waived, and
• Fees related to certain permit types should be revised, based on the evaluation
of the 10% cap on permit fees and further evaluation of permit fees in general,
and that the CPI increase should not apply to these permit types, as referenced
in Exhibit 2 and the attached ordinances.
KGB/JGG/SS/KT
T:\AGENDA\2012\9-12-12\Permit Fee Revisions\Permit Fee Revisions memo 09122012.doc
14
City ofJ'Jt/iami Beach, Florida
Building Development Services-Review of Implementation of Fee Study
i'Jtlay 2011
INTRODUCTION
t'J< h . ..i bH: .1
This report is a review of the implementation of the development fee study conducted in
2009. It includes two deliverables; the first reviews the structure of the fees with cost/
revenue analysis, the second reviews current issues with the fee structure and proposes
recommendations for improvement.
REVIEW OF IMP LENT ATION OF FEE STUDY (FIRST DELIVERABLE)
The City of Miami Beach contracted with MAXIM US to conduct a cost of services study of
its development service fees. The study was completed in the fall of 2009, after which The
City of Miami Beach enacted the new fee schedule in February 1, 2010. The adopted fee
schedule includes discounts on various fee services from the full cost determined through
the cost analysis.
The objectives of the study were to:
a) Simplify the fee structure
b) Ensure that fees are revenue-neutral
c) Review if the City applied the fees correctly based on the final report
SIMPLICITY OF THE NEW FEE STRUCTURE
The City of Miami Beach spent a significant amount of staff time and effort during the cost
of service study to make sure that the data it provided was accurate and reasonable. It also
took the time to understand our proposed Nexus model and adapt it to the specific needs of
the City.
The City's development services fee schedule is a thirty-page document-many times
longer than we see in most cities, mostly due to the desire to tailor the schedule to a variety
of specific development activities. Length by itself does not create complexity, but it can
make it harder to find a specific item in a long list. It made the process of developing the
fee schedule take much longer than it usually does, but it is not our finding that the resulting
fee schedule is too complicated.
We feel that the City took a move toward simplicity by emphasizing per square foot charges
in construction tables. We also recommend that the City limit the number of unique new
fee types that evolve over time, but a limited number of periodic changes is not, in our
opinion, a violation of the "keep it simple" principle.
REVENUE-NEUTRAL
To conduct a cost versus revenue comparison since the adoption of the new fee schedule,
we requested the following information from the City:
• Revenue generated with new fees by month since adoption
• City cost based on the FY 2010/11 adopted budget
• Permit demand associated with those fees
MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc.
-I -
15
City of Miami Beach, Florida
Builtling Developmelll Services-Review of lmplementatioll of Fee Study
May 2011
A detailed analysis with graphs of actual revenue and budgeted cost by month is attached
to this report in Excel format.
The table below shows the variance of revenue projection based on the change in fully-
loaded hourly rates from FY 2008-09 to FY 2010-11. The building department hourly rate
has increased by 12% but the hourly rates for Planning, Public Works and Fire have all
decreased.
2008/09 2010/11
Fully-loaded Fully-loaded
hourly rate hourly rate %Change
Building $ 114.00 $ 127.53 12%
Planning $ 108.08 $ 98.80 -9%
Public Works $ 103.07 $ 85.49 -17%
Fire $ 95.46 $ 93.29 -2%
The table below shows the summary of actual revenue and budgeted costs for the four
departments involved in development services.
FY 2007/08 2009 Maximus Study 2011 Review
Percent
Total MAXIMUS Total MAXIMUS Cost
Projected Percent Projected Recovery Actual Revenue Estimated Percent
Actual Revenue at Full Cost Revenue with with March 2010-Cost for FY Cost
TOTAL REVENUE Revenues Cost Recovery Discounts Discounts Feb 2011 2010/11 Recovery
BUILDING
Annual Revenue • $ 9,732,237 $ 9,536,470 $ 8,144,734 $ 7,833,458 $ 10,680,846
Monthly Average $ 811,020 $ 794,706 102% $ 678,728 85% $ 652,788 $ 890,071 73%
PLANNING
Annual Revenue $ 452,023 $ 1,597,016 $ 1,337,078 $ 1,163,547 s 1,453,285
Monthly Average s 37,669 $ 133,085 28% $ 111,423 84% $ 96,962 $ 121,107 80%
PUBUC WORKS (Engineering)
Annual Revenue s 650,448 $ 1,313,507 s 1,184,707 s 599,599 s 1,090,211
Monthly Average $ 54,204 $ 109,459 50% $ 98,726 90% $ 49,967 $ 90,851 55%
FIRE (Prevention)
Annual Revenue s 648,049 $ 1,836,380 $ 1,499,136 $ 1,408,680 s 1,799,652
Monthly Average $ 54,004 ~ 153,032 35% s 124,928 82% s 117,390 $ 149,971 78%
GRANO TOTAL $ 11,482,757 $ 14,283,373 80% $ U,16S,655 85% $ 11,005,284 $ 15,023,994 73%
Proj.
Revenues
with
Proposed
Revisions
$ 7,833,458
$ 652,788
s 751.274
s 62,606
$ 520,265
$ 43,355
$ 783,847
$ 65,321
$ 9,888,844
"Excludes One time project Closeout revenues in the amount of$ 2,673,120collected in FY 2007/08and $922,627 collected between March 2010 and February 2011
Our understanding is that the development industry itself has changed since 2009, resulting
in a shift from major new construction to minor remodeling projects. That appears to be the
most likely reason for the shortfall.
MAXIMUS Consulting Services, (nc.
-2-
16
City of Miami Beach, Florida
Building Development Services-Review of Implementation of Fee Study
May 2011
APPLICATION OF FEE STRUCTURE
Has the City applied the fee schedule correctly? Not having directly observed how City
staff calculated fees, MAXI MUS cannot answer this question based on direct observation of
how fees were calculated. However, City staff demonstrated to us that they understood
how to calculate and apply fees.
Alteration/remodel applications generated the most discussion in this project, but that
discussion was more an expression of concern that the prices seemed high than how to
apply fees. During this project, we had several conversations with City staff that left us
confident that they know how to apply fees correctly and that reasonable processes are in
place to avoid charging unfair or excessive fees.
One additional piece of evidence that staff are applying fees correctly is the finding that
revenues from permits are roughly equal to the underlying costs of each category of service
and in no case is revenue greater than the underlying cost pool.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON CURRENT ISSUES (SECOND DELIVERABLE)
In 2009, the City of Miami Beach adopted a new fee schedule for permits issued by the
departments of Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works (Engineering). City staff have
gained experience using this schedule and feel that certain changes may improve the ease
of use and collective understanding of how to apply the fees in the ordinance. The purpose
of this report is to address current issues and potential new fee categories that were
identified during brainstorming sessions with the City of Miami Beach. This report
addressed the following issues:
• The latest proposed "glitch ordinance" drafted to amend the fee schedules
• Current issues with the fee structure, including:
o Alterations/Renovation Permits
o Single Family Homes
o ROW fees/crane fees
o High rise fees
MAXIM US also reviewed ten alteration/renovation projects that the City deemed illustrative
of questions about how to apply the pricing in the ordinance. These examples are provided
in a separate file.
"GLITCH BILL"-METHODOLOGY
The basic premise of activity-based costing is simple -apply an inclusive hourly that
reflects the cost of resources to the time required to provide a service. In our 2009 study, a
critical piece of our methodology was the hourly rate calculation. The model applies hourly
rates to City staff explanations of time requirements to provide various services With
respect to the "glitch bill," we find that the City correctly applied the MAXIMUS methodology
in calculations to arrive at prices for newly-listed services.
MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc.
-3-
17
Ci~v of lltliami Beaclt, Florida
Building Development Services-Review of Implementation of Fee Stm~r
Muy 2011
We have three recommendations regarding the "Glitch Bill."
1) While it is sometimes necessary to add additional fee categories, the City should
implement a review process so that the new fee categories add clarification and
simplification and are not overly complicated or duplications of another fee. We
understand the City's need for the additional fees in the glitch bill and believe that
these add clarification.
2) Continue the practice of applying rates to estimated time to provide services. In
2009, we worked with staff to estimate the time to perform each service. We spent a
great deal of time refining these efforts and checking them against available hours
and comparing them to the reported effort required by other local building
development services. By extending time estimates by quantities of each
transaction type, we built up a total time requirement for each department. We
reconciled the total time reported for each department to the time available in each
department. net of the time required for paid leave and administrative duties.
3) In the same vein, we suggest that the City of Miami Beach use the annual quantities
multiplied by the new fee prices to determine the financial impact of these changes.
The only new category that we recommend is one for "other projects not listed." It is
impossible to predict all of the types of construction that may occur. In such cases, we
recommend adding a category to the fee schedule as follows:
"Other projects not listed. In case of a project not otherwise listed, the Building
Director or designee shall apply the hourly rates for each department involved to an
estimate of time required to review and inspect a new project."
ALTERATIONS/REMODEL
HISTORY
Typically, we use a model with a category for alteration/remodel permits in different
occupancy types. The effort required for such permits is less than that involved in
construction of new premises. In earlier drafts of our analysis for the City of Miami Beach,
our model contained Level 2 Alteration categories for various occupancy types.
During draft reviews of our results in 2009, the cost of these activities were deemed
sufficiently similar to new construction to merit eliminating the Level 2 Alteration permits in
each occupancy type where it had been to that point and simply using the new construction
category to price alteration/remodeling permits.
Recently. City staff indicated that for some of the applications received. the new
construction category might result in an unreasonably high cost-defined as a permit
whose price is a significant cost relative to the cost of the underlying construction work
itself. This may reflect construction industry trends in the last two years, in which,
nationally, there are more small alteration projects and fewer projects involving new
construction or significant remodeling.
MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc.
-4-
18
City of Jl;Jiami Beach, Florida
Builtling Development Services-Review of Implementation of Fee Study
1\t/ay 2011
In reviewing the current situation, MAXI MUS finds that a reasonable resolution is to
determine if the scope of remodeling will involve departments other than Building. The new
construction permit pricing assumes involvement of the departments of Building, Fire,
Planning and Public Works. After a detailed review, it was determined that all departments
are still involved, but that the labor estimates for Planning and Public Works needed to be
reduced to match the actual time that staff spend on these projects.
ATTACHMENTZ
City of Miami 8(!ach, Florida
PROPOSED RENOVATION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION FEES
PROPOSED DISCOUNTED FEE: ·lriCI\1mei'IQI Fee Per
T01AI.AAOJEcTCOST Squue Footage lnCI\1mental Sq Ft (Per flundiitd Sit l't)
la ... l Oceuponcy Typo FROM I UP TO Building I Fino I I PUblcJ Planning Works , TOTAl. FRoM I TO
0 500 f 300.00 $ 452« $ 131.17 $ 48.3&, s 522.44 $0 $ Uf420
B Busines~ 501 2,500 $ 255.92 $ 33.41 s 8lU2 $ ,0.83 s 378.54 ,$ 211110.74 s 1o.f45.01
2.501 25,000 $ 80.83 $ 7.40 $ 9.48 $ 0.63. $ .98J4 $ 10,243:18 .s 32.22Uo
25,001 50,000 $ 3U7 $ 5.71 $ 8.60 $ 0.62 $ $2.$0 $ 32.2'80.® $ 45.375.00
METHODOLOGY
We worked with City staff to review and update the time spent working on Level 2
alterations. The departments of Building and Fire reviewed their previous estimates and
confirmed that they were reasonable. The departments of Planning and Public Works
submitted changes. We used the same methodology as in the 2009 study:
1) We worked with staff to determined the labor effort for each type of Level 2
alteration by occupancy type
2) If staff asked us to scale the tim~ estimates by project size, we did so based on
the same scaling percentages as the 2009 study
3) We extended the departmental hourly rates to the time data that the departments
supplied to reflect the cost of each activity
4) We update the fee schedule to show the actual cost and then applied the same
percentage discounts to the recommended fees as in 2009
SPECIAL CASES
There are two special cases that need to be noted:
1) Planning requested that we calculate a separate fee for alterations done in
historic districts because they require additional labor effort. While we
understand their desire for this request, we found that the difference or percent
fee increase for historic properties was about 1 %, which we believe is not
sufficiently material to justify the complexity of adding a new category to the fee
schedule.
2) Staff report that Change of Use should be charged as New Construction. The
City needs to clearly indicate this on the fee schedule. Our analysis has
assumed that no permits are change of use. This assumption will undervalue the
predicted revenue, but the City was not able to estimate how many alteration
permits at this time require a change of use at this time.
Ml\XLMUS Consulting Services, Inc.
-5-
19
City ofllt/iami Beach, Florida
Building Development Services-Review of Implementation t~{ Fee Study
May 2011
REVENUE IMPACT
The City asked MAXIM US to determine the financial impact of this change. The table
below reflects the updated data from Planning and Public Works.
Revenue Comparison
Current Revenue Predicted Revenue (w/
(Building, Fire, Planning, updated labor and
Public Works) discounts)
Total $ 3,906,651 $ 3,413,214
Additional Public
Subsidy $ (493,437)
Additional Planning
Subsidy $ (412,273)
Additional Public
Works Subsidy $ (81 '164)
SPECIALTY PERMITS VERSUS LEVEL 2 RENOVATIONS/NEW CONSTRUCTION
The current fee schedule contains specialty permits for construction permits such as
kitchen and bath remodels. The City asked what to do when an application covers what
would normally be several different specialty permit items -should they be charged for
specialty permits and when should they be charged based on the square footage of the
occupancy type of Level 2 alteration/remodel (which is the same fee as new construction)?
The purpose of the fee schedule is to charge people what it costs to provide the services
their requests invoke. The cost for specialty permits was determine based on how much
staff time it would required to provide just that item. When a person needs to permit
multiple work items, the staff time required is actually less (due to economies of scale). For
example, inspectors can often make one trip to inspect multiple items.
The point at which the City's labor estimate for providing services based on level 2
alteration/remodel become more efficient than for specialty permits (usually after 2-3
specialty permits are needed) is when the applicant should be charge for a level 2
alteration/remodel. The challenge here is that there are so many permutations of what an
applicant may wish to do, that it is not feasible to produce a schedule that anticipates all of
those project types. The schedules follow an average cost methodology. MAXIM US is not
aware of any legal requirement to price services based on the requirements of single
customers. It is not even clear that such a method would provide reduced fees
Theoretically, it would result in lower charges for some and higher charges for others. With
actual revenue data suggesting that City collections are below the full cost recovery levels
suggested in the 2009 report, it seems that, despite City concern about potentially
overcharging, that assessing a specialty permit fee for each feature is valid.
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc.
-6-
20
City of Miami Beach, Florida
Building Development Services-Review of lmpleme11tatitm of Fee Stm(v
iUay 2011
The Building Department reviewed all labor time estimates and confirmed that the new
construction fee schedule time estimates were correct. Based on this, the City of Miami
Beach can make a policy decision to discount single family homes if it wishes, although the
cost data would support full cost pricing. The City has already decided to discount all
custom homes less than 1 ,500 square feet. However, this is a policy decision and does not
affect how much it actually costs the city to provide these services.
Square Footage TOTAl.. PROJECT COST TOTAl.. PROJECT COST
I class! Occupancy Type FROM I UP TO FROM I TO FROM I TO
Percent I
Discount
0 1.500 $0 $ 9,635.18 $0 $ 9,905.78 -63% ---·
R-3 Dwellings-Custom Homes 1,501 2,500 $ 9,775.68 $ 11,039.98 $ 6,419.20 $ 11,039.91'1 0%
--2,50'1 10.000 $ 11.180.46 $ 21.fl78.00 $ 11,180AG $ 21,576.00 0% --10,001 50,000 $ 21,703.02 $ 72.384.00 $ 21,703.02 $ 72,384.00 0%
In our experience, it is rare to discount single-family home permit prices. With all due
respect to limiting charges to applicants, these calculations reflect the value of the work
done, they amount to small percentages of total project cost and charging based on cost
protects other taxpayers from having to pay part of the cost of these private-benefit
transactions.
RIGHT OF WAY FEES/CRANE FEES
Public Works used to charge based for blocking of Right-of-Way, (plus .25 Per L.F. per day,
plus a Right-of-Way obstruction fee of $10.53 per square ft per day. The City is now
charging for the blocking of right
Crane operators complained that the current $953 ROW obstruction fee which the crane
operators pass onto their customers was too costly for crane lifts requiring less than 2
hours to complete.
Public Works was tasked to create a flexible ROW obstruction fee to be assessed
separately for local, collectors and arterial roadways/street corridors; by implementing a
priority/standard plan review process with priority reviews being processed as an
emergency review to be completed on the same day submitted.
The flexible obstruction rates for priority/standard reviews clearly demonstrate that staff
reduced level of efforts per category produced a significant fee reduction for crane
operations performed within the public rights of way.
In the "Glitch Bill" amending the original fee schedule, Public Works has proposed charging
for ROW based on the corridor classification (local, collector, arterial) and whether the
review is propriety or standard. This is a standard structure for Public Works and
MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc.
-7 -
21
City oj1tliami Beach, Florida
Buildillg Developmellt Services-Review of Implemeutatioll of Fee Stm{v
lttlay 2011
MAXIM US supports this change. This change also makes it easier for Public Works to
provide labor based justifications for their fees.
HIGH-RISE PERMITS
In 2009, MAXIM US worked with City staff to gain an understanding of labor efforts for each
service. We ask City staff to decompose their work into steps and will estimate the time
required for each step. Since it is not feasible to ask how long the City spends with intake,
plan review, and inspection for each occupancy type and each size project within each
occupancy type, we make some simplifying assumptions.
• For certain permit types, we asked questions about effort level differences for
projects of different sizes in a single occupancy type. For example, we asked staff
how long it took to provide a group of services for the following sized businesses.
Related Standard
IBC BUilding Use Occupanc
Class e. ., IBCIFBC Occu anc Size s
B Business 500
" complete all lines-commercial Scaling 2500 .. complete allllnes-Commercia/.Scal/ng 5.000 .. complete al/llnes--commercial Scaling 10000
" complete aflllnes-Commercial Scaling 25,000
" complete allllnes--commerclal Scallng 50,000
B Business-High Rise <50,000 sf 25,000
B Business-High Rise 50,000 sf to 100,000 sf 75,000
B Business-High Rise >100,000 sf 150,000
• The City's answers about how much longer it takes to serve a larger-sized project
within these key occupancy types represent a percentage difference that we can
apply to related occupancy types.
The standard MAXIM US Nexus model contains an occupancy category for business and
business high-rise (as seen above). However, MAXIMUS confirmed that the labor required
to provide a business permit and a business high=rise permit were sufficiently similar to
combine the two categories.
In addition, the City grouped occupancy types where the cost per square foot for permits
greater than 50,000 was similar. On average, it always requires more time to permit a
larger building. As a result, the cost of a larger project should be more than a smaller sized
permit of the same occupancy type. However, the cost for square foot actually decreases.
The City has taken this unique aspect into consideration when developing their fees. Many
cities, especially those that have not based their fee structure on an activity-based costing
study, do not take this into consideration.
MAXI MUS Consulting Services, Inc.
-8-
22
Ci(l' r?f'Miami Beach, F1orida
Building De1•e!opment Service.'i-Review r~f'lmplemellfatiou r~l Fee Stut~V
May2011
Staff spent significant time deciding that this was the best solution. Unless the underlying
facts have changed -and we have not seen evidence of this -we recommend no change
to the structure of the 2009 report on this point.
PUBLIC WORKS REVENUE
FY20071\J8 2009 Ma~mus Study 2011 Rovmw
Percent Cost
Recovery Percent Cost Actual
Total MAXIMUS based on r-Y T a tal MAXIMU S RecO\'OfYW!Ih Revenue
Esurna:ed Full 2007108 Projected Revenue Adopted March 2010 · Est:mawd Cost Percent Cos!
TOT ''L REVENUE 1\ctuat Rovanues Cost Rovonues wilh Adopted t:ees Fees Feb20!1 forFY2010/t 1 Recovery
PUBLIC VVORKS
(Eng,neenng)
1\nnual Revenue $650.448 $1,313.507 $ t' t84.707 5599,599 s 1,090,211
Monthly Awrage S54.20tl 5109,459 50(YG $96.726 90% $49,967 s 90,851 55''/o
Potential New R!es (General Amd)· Not Implemented
Coastal Re"ew 15.461 S IJ,290
fsaw'aiCapaCity-----------t---·----···-·---·· ·· --------------!---·-··-· +--
CerHf!calion Letter
Appllcallon
Backnow Annual
lnspecuon Perm11 {Fire
~::ppresS!Cn Feel
Annual Revenue
Mjusted $650,448
$54,204
185.528
15·1.607
$957,911
S79,826 68°1\1
180.000
154,000
$837,417 S599,599 s 795,066
$59,785 87% $49,967 s 66,256 75t:.'o
Based on our initial review. it appeared as if Public Works was only recovering 55% of
costs, while most other departments were recovering closer to 75%. The main reason for
this difference is that our analysis included three new potential fee categories that were not
implemented. Excluding these, Public Works actually recovered 75% of cost.
In addition, the Public Works department has continued to see a decline in permit activity.
This is the main reason Public Works less than 100%, of cost. In 2008, Public Works
performed 936 right-of-way permits. In 2011 the annualized number is projected to be 638,
which is a 68% decline in permit volume.
MAXIM US Consulting Services. Inc.
-9-
23
~ ~ Total Additional Public Subsidy Additional Plannmg Subsidy Additional Public Works Subsidy Revenue Comparison Current Revenue (Building, Fire, Planning, Public Works) $ 3,906,651 Predicted Revenue (w/ updated labor and discounts) $ 3,413,214 $ (493,437) $ (412,273) $ (81,164)
~ U'l Public Public Building Building Fire Fire Planning Planning Works Works Total Total Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Total ~ Fee Fee Difference Fee Fee Difference Fee Fee Differgnce Fee Fee Difference Fee Fee Difference Generator-Single Family $ 377.00 $ 151.00 $ (226.00) $ $ $ -$ 123.00 $ 49.00 $ (74.00) $ $ $ $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ (300.00) Generator~Commercial Under 10,000 sq It or non-life safety related generator $ 2,392.00 $ 1,196.00 $ (1,196.00) $ 262.00 $ 131.00 $ (131.00) $ 346.00 $ 173.00 $ (173.00) $ $ $ $ 3,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ (1 ,500.00) 10,000 to 50,000 sq ft $ 2,983.00 $ 1,492.00 $ (1,491.00) $ 501.00 $ 251.00 $ (250.00) $ 346.00 $ 173.00 $ (173.00) $ $ $ $ 3,830.00 $ 1,916.00 $ (1,914.00) Above 50,000 sq It $ 3,190.00 $ 1,784.00 $ (1 ,406.00) $ 810.00 $ 453.00 $ (357.00) $ 346.00 $ 194.00 $ (152.00) $ $ $ $ 4,346.00 $ 2,431.00 $ (1,915.00) Solar(Photovoltaic)/Alternate Power Systems-Single family $ 489.00 $ 245.00 $ (244.00) $ $ -$ $ 11.00 $ 6.00 $ (5.00) $ -$ $ $ 500.00 $ 251.00 $ (249.00) Systems-Commercial/Multi-family $ 1,899.00 $ 950.00 $ (949.00) $ $ $ -$ 21.00 $ 11.00 $ (10.00) $ $ -$ I $ 1,92o.oo $ 961.00 $ (959.00) Transfer Switch for Future Generator(per unit) $ 291.00 $ 146.00 $ (145.00) $ $ $ $ 9.00 $ 5.00 $ (4.00) $ $ $ $ 300.00 $ 151.00 $ (149.00) Painting Permit Residential $ 35.00 $ 27.00 $ (8.00) $ $ $ $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ I $ $ $ -$ 100.00 $ 92.00 $ (8.00) Commercial $ 115.00 $ 27.00 $ (88.00) $ $ $ $ 109.00 $ 109.00 $ $ 26.00 $ 26.00 $ $ 250.00 $ 162.00 $ (88.00) Plumbing Fixtures Fixture Rough,under 5 units $ 200.00 $ 100.00 $ (100.00) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -$ $ 200.00 $ 100.00 $ (100.00) Fixture Sets replacement, Up to 5 units $ 143.00 $ 100.00 $ (43.00) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 143.00 $ 100.00 $ (43.00) Installation of traction elevators and escalators, per unit. Each additional story over 10 $ 154.00 $ 84.00 $ (70.00) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -$ $ $ 154.00 $ 84.00 $ (70.00) Elevator Repairs (Jack/Oil lines) $ 519.00 $ 250.00 $ (269.00) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -$ $ 519.00 $ 250.00 $ (269.00) Elevator Repairs (Can Interior/ Others) $ 291.00 $ 250.00 $ (41.00) $ $ $ -. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 291.00 $ 250.00 $ (41.00) Partial Demolition Under 300 sq ft $ 711.00 $ 228.00 $ (483.00)11 $ 73.00 $ 23.00 $ (50.00) $ 50.00 $ 16.00 $ (34.00)11 $ $ $ -$ 834.00 $ 267.00 $ (567.00) 300-1 000 sq ft $ 711.00 $ 711.00 $ -II$ 73.00 $ 73.00 $ $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ II$ 24.oo $ 24.00 $ -$ 858.00 $ 858.00 $ The following are other permit types recommended for fee reductions. The Total Difference in fees reflects the minimum amount of savings a customer may experience if these proposed fees are adopted, as the basis for calculation is changing from square footage to per unit or vice versa. Building Sign I Each $ 142.00 $ 116.00 $ (26.00) $ $ $ $ 108.00 $ 108.00 $ II$ $ $ -II$ 250.00 $ 224.00 $ (26.00) Awnings,canopies and patio covers -New Single Family Home (Per Unit) $ 91.00 $ 150.00 $ 59.00 $ $ $ $ 81.00 $ $ (81.00)11 $ 10.00 $ $ (10.00)11 $ 182.00 $ 150.00 $ (32.00) All Other Occupancies 1-30 Units $ 198.00 $ 146.00 $ (52.00) $ 98.00 $ 95.00 $ (3.00) $ 118.00 $ 108.00 $ (10.00) $ 25.00 $ -$ (2500)11 $ 439.00 $ 349.00 $ (90.00) Each additional 10 units over 30 $ 493.00 $ 185.00 $ (308.00) $ 203.00 $ $ (203.00) $ 168.00 $ $ (168.00) $ 25.00 $ -$ (25.00)11 $ 889.00 $ 185.00 $ (704.00) The following permit type is recommended for fee revision. Savings will be realized for any quantity of signs under four (4) signs. However, in Fiscal Year 2011/2012, no permit applications have included more than three (3) signs. Electric Sign One Electric Sign $ 247.00 $ 71.00 $ (176.00) $ $ -$ $ -$ 29.00 $ 29.00 $ -$ $ $ 247.00 $ 100.00 $ (147.00) 2-5 Electric Signs $ 366.00 $ $ (366.00) $ $ $ -$ $ $ $ $ -$ $ 366.00 $ $ (366.00) Each Additional Sign over 5 $ 47.00 $ $ (47.00) $ $ $ $ $ $ -$ $ $ $ 47.00 $ $ (47.00) Each Additional Sign over 1 $ $ 71.00 $ 71.00 $ $ $ $ $ 29.00 $ 29.00 $ $ $ $ $ 100.00 $ 100.00 ----\\'"") "':>(. ?:" ~ r;-\'J
ORDINANCES TO BE SUBMITTED
26