Resolution No. 99-60 CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON
RESOLUTION NO.99-&C)
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BUILDING PERMIT FEES PURSUANT TO OREGON
STRUCTURAL SPECIALTY CODE,SECTION 107 AS AMENDED UNDER ORS 455.020
WHEREAS,building regulatory services are solely fee supported;and
WHEREAS, Subsection(c)of Section 14.04.040 of Title 14 of Tigard Municipal Code indicates that fees
for building code program administration shall be established by resolution of the City Council;and
WHEREAS, Section 3.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code grants the City Council the authority to set rates
for fees and charges by resolution;and
iF IIERFAS, The City of Tigard must assess those fes necessary to recover costs associated with the
building code administration program;and
WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council reviewed a cost analysis of building code administration activities on
January 19, 1999 and February 23,1999;and
WHEREAS,the City of Tigard published the proposed fee increase on July 22,1999 in the legal section of
the Tigard Times,and on July 20,1999,in the Oregonian;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by Tigard City Council that fees for services provided under the
Oregon Structural Specialty Code program shall be as follows:
Building Fees:
Valuation shall be determined by the most recent edition of"Building Valuation Data"published by
The Intemational Conference of Building Officials,using"good'construction and the Oregon modifier.
Total Valuation Fee
$1.00 to$2000 $50.00
$2001 to$25,000.00 $50.00 for the first$2000.00 plus$9.25 for each additional
$1000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$25,000.00
$25001.00 to$50,000.00 $262.75 for the first$25,000.00 plus$6.75 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$50,000.00
$50,001.00 to$100,000.00 $431.50 for the first$50,000.00 plus$4.65 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$100,000.00
a $100,001.00 to$500,000.00 $664.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.75 for each
i additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and
includin $500,000.00
$500,001.00 to$1,000,000.00 $2,164.00 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.40 for each
r fraction thereof, and ...Lair
additional $1,OGJ.00 0_ f___:..n to a,. ;,,.,.u.,.,,
RESOLUTION NO.c---UV
P4ge 1
$1,0()0,000.00
10000(_)
00000 and up $3,864.00 for the firs' $1,000,000.00 plus $2.65 for each
additional$1,000.00,or fraction thereof.
Classifecatian:The City Council has determined that the fees imposed by this resolution are not
taxes sub,ject to the property tax limitations of Article XI section II b of the Oregon Constitution.
PASSED: Tris u \day of .C.0 1999,with the fee increase to be effective on
August_23, 1999,
yor-City of Tigar
AT i rat':
00City Recorder-City of Tigard Q
iAcitywide\res lutdot
i
VW
i
i
Page 2
EXHIBIT I
Methodology for determininz fees increase
H
7
H
H
y
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Analysis approach:
COST OF ENFORCING THE OREGON STRUCTURAL SPECIALTY CODE(OSSC)
Whereas the previous study was based upon the theory of 100%recovery of the Building Program cost,preparing
this analysis focused on the true cost of administering the OSSC aspect of the program.
In determining the most indisputable bases for the study,information was gleaned from records for actual numbers
of OSSC permits,permit processing,and structural inspections for fiscal year 1997/98 and 1998/99.For operations
cost,the City's Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures for 1998 and Income Statement ending May 30,1999 were
used.
We commenced our study not holding to any staff level or projection for a work level projected beyond that
necessary to support just the true cost of doing business.
• From the total number of permits issued, inspections conducted, and other building department related
processing provided for 1997/98 and 1998/99,the 18c2 family permits,plumbing,mechanical and electrical
pe,—;ts and those associated inspecuons were subtracted,providing the OSSC work load.
• To ensure work productivity was current,we instituted a new task performance survey of the field inspectors,
plan examiners,and Development Services Technicians(Permit Specialists).
The study confirms the need for an immediate fee increase of not less than 89%,however at the direction of
Council the proposed increase is 51%.
The following is a summary of each category of findings.
H
0
H
H
H
5
1
SUMMARY OF'OTHF COST OF a MINIST ERIN THE OSSC-
LABOR
S .-LABOR Labor cost for administering the commercial aspect of the Building Program as determined below is
fcund on page a.:�,"Cost of Administering the OSSC"(comr-tercial work).
1. Administrative Specialist II
• The first study undertaken was to establish an accurate number of commercial OSSC inspections
performed in Fiscal Year 1997/98.
• The findings are set forth in"Cost Of Administering The OSSC"(page three)Note#1.
With that information we established a labor cost for the Admin. Specialist II doing just the OSSC
processing at$6,746.
2. Inspector II:
• From the Building Program's 1997/98 payroll records,we determined the expenditure for our three fully
supervised inspectors with full benefits.
• Each inspector is certified in multiple disciplines(see page 3,Note la).
With this information a labor cost was established which translated into 2.4 FTE inspectors,at an annual
cost of$110,556.
3. Plans Examiners:
• From the Building Program's 1997/98 payroll records, we determined the expenditure for a fully
supervised commercial pians examiner and a Plans Examiner Supervisor doing plan review 20%of the
time,with full be..efits.
• The plan examiners are certified in multiple disciplines(see page three Note#2a).
With this information a labor cost was established that translated into.88 FTE plans examiner,at an
annual cost of$93,626.
4. DST/Permit Specialist:
• From the most current task performance survey uf the Development Services Technicians (DST),we
determined approximately 14%of the Admin.Specialist(receptionist)and DST job performance was in
servicing OSSC(commercial)permit processing(see page three Nate#3).
• With this information,a labor cost was established that translated into a.3 FTE(DST)and a.12 FTE
(Admin Specialist 1)required necessary to process OSSC(commercial)permits, at an annual cost of
$25,276.
EXPENSES Expenses for materials,expenditures and indirect cost.
1. Gleaning information from the City's 1997/98 "Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures",we determined 33%
of those expenses are related to processing OSSC(commercial)permits(see page three Note#2).
RESERVE, Accumulating a Six-Month Building Program fund.
1. Accumulating the fund starts with Fiscal Year of 1999/00 and its base is the 1997/98 established cost of
conducting business($379,650).
The base is then increased by an annual increase of 4%,compounded for five years,divided by five years,
i and then reduced to one-half.
TOTAL COST OF ADMINISTERING� THE O�S,SC and iJFC
Beginning with the Fiscal Year 1999/2000 and continuing five years,the projected cost of administering the OSSC,
(commercial)portion of the Building Program,is shown on page four,table"Balance Sheet".
7
ANk
�1®
2
SUMMARY OF THE••LONG RADIGE F1NAN(`i4i PI 4N"
Pages five and six provide four distinct categories of information and notes necessary to understanding this fee
proposal.
1. Review of the top than begins with the two columns labeled"Actual 1997/98"and"Actual 1998/99".Each
contains the total number of permits process--d for the"Type of Job"identified in the far left column.
Continuing across,the last five columns labeled"Proposcid'are projections of future business through fiscal
year 2003/04.
2. The.first two columns of the iower chart starting with"Unit Revenue 1997/98",contain the averaged fee
received for a building permit,plan review,and fire and life safety(FLS)review identified by letter in the far
left column of the upper chart.
3. The third column contains the averaged fee of columns 1&2 and increased by 89%.
• Columns four and five show the actual income received for the permits,plan and FLS review for fiscal
years 97/98 and 98/99.
4. The last six columns show the proposed income and reserves generated by an 89%fee increase for comparison.
i se higher increase is necessary to offset the greater portion of the operating expenses for the Tigard Building
Program(see Notes 1 through 5).
• Income for the year 1999/00 is projected at 51%,per Council's direction to implement the increase in
phases.
S JMMARY OF T'?R"FINANC-AL PLAN BAI AN F SHEFT"
This table is self-explanatory.
i
i
i
4
Cost of Administering the OSSC(Commercial)portion
Of the Building Department
1997-1998
Using the Fiscal Year End statement and worksheet"Determination of Unit Staff Cost"
EXPENSES:
LABOR:
1. Administrative Specialist II ............................... $6,746
•Equates to.12 of a Full Time Employee(FTE)
See Nate 1
2. Inspector II................................... ......... $110,556
• Equates to 1.4 Full Time Employees (FTE)
• See Note la
3. Plans Examiner ........................................ $93,626
• Equates to.88 of a Full Time Employee (FTE)
• See Note 2a
4. Development Services Technician (DST)................... $25,276
• Equates to.42 of a Full Time Employee (FTE)
•See Note 2a
SUB-TOTAL $236,204
MA T ciAiS and E rEry i i -F : $76,904 I
See Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures,ending June 30,1998 II
• Includes office supplies,advertising,computer software,travel and
lodging,computer equipment,furniture&equipment,education and
training,etc.
• See Note#2
INDIRECT COST (see Note 2)
See Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures,Ending June 30, 1998
Repair and maintenance of inspection vehicles.................... $10,426
2. Administration and Policy............................. $128,809
• Risk Management............$19,993
• Finance....................$10,855
• Network Services............$ 6,986
Accounting.................$16,707
• Administration Services.......$31,141
• Mayor and City Council.......$ 3,941
1 Personnel...................$20,933
i CityAdministration ..........$18,253
.l 3. Community Director and Staff...........................-538,715
i Equates to.26 of a Full Time Employee(FTE)
i
j 4. Citywide Sun nnrtfi�nc+i�-. -
— ..............................$23,691
7 See Note#2 Sub-Total $201.641 Q 33% _ $66,542
TOTAL FXPENSES FOR ENFOR IN OSSQ- $379_650
5
ACCUMULATION OF THE 6-MONTH RESERVE ACCOUNT
"''c annual cost of enforcing the OSSC portion the Building Program was established at$379,650 for the
1997/98 Fiscal Year.
• The$379,650 is the base for calculating the 6-months reserve account.
• The base is increased by a projected 4%annual inflation rate over the next five years establishing an
annual set-aside of$46,190.
FORMULA:
$379.650(1.0-4')(.5) = $230.951—$46,190 annual cost of establishing a 6 months reserve.
5yr.
Year: Cost of OSSC: Reserve accumulation: Total Cost of enforcement:
1999/00 $394,836 $46,190 $441,026
2000/01 $410,629 $46,190 $456,819
2001/02 $427,055 $46,190 $473,245
2002/03 $444,136 $46,190 $490,326
2003/04 .461 00^ $4f JU $508.092
$2,138,558 $230,950 $2,369,508
n
N
M
3
6
®taa
NOTES:
I. Inspections conducted for all disciplines,were 21,452 of which 2,475 inspections were substantiated as OSSC
and UFC(commercial)permits.(11.5%of total)
• Therefore,attributed to the cost of doing OSSC and Uniform Fire Code(UFC)processing is 12%of the
Administrative Specialist II cost.
2. Comparing documented revenue generated solely from OSSC and UFC(commercial)processing,to the total
revenue necessary to fund the Building Program(not including urban c&Towth boundary)for Fiscal Year ending
June 30,1998,a factor of 32.5%was established.
Therefore,the factor attributed to the cost of the Program for administering the OSSC and UFC will be 33%
3. Using the Activity Report,for Fiscal Year ending June 30,1998,3,668 permits were issued for the Tigard area
of which 508 were substantiated to be OSSC and UFC permits.(13.8%of total)
• Therefore,attributed to the cost of conducting the OSSC and UFC process is 14%of the DST staff and
Receptionist cost associated with coneucting Building Program business.
Note 1 a Cost of Field Inspections
The 1997/98 payroll of the Building Program included$237,550 for three(3)certified OSSC and UFC inspectors
(Inspector II).Each inspector,being certified in other disciplines,performed 1&2 family,mechanical and plumbing
inspections in addition to all OSSC and UFC inspections.
As best that could be determined,the actual cost of providing OSSC and UFC inspection service during Fiscal Year
1997/98 was$110,556.
Comparison of labor to inspection work load and cost
The total payroll and benefit cost for providing each fully supervised Inspector II is$79,183.
• Divide the total cost of providing OSSC and UFC inspection services($110,556)by an inspector's cost equates
to 1.4 inspectors.
• An Inspector II working 206 days annually and performing 12 inspections each workday can complete 2,520
inspections annually.
• The total OSSC and UFC inspections for Fiscal Year 1997/98 were 2,475.
Note#2a Cost of Plans F,a inin
Plans Examiner
The payroll cost for a fully supervised $105,947
plans examiner with full benefits is
Subtract:
14%for Single Family Review(SF) $-14,533
14%for Mechanical Pian Review $-12,714
Add:20%for the Plans Examiner $15.226
Supervisor doing plan review.
TOTAL coa X06
Development SeLvices unter Staff
Co
Admin Spec I @$23,479 x 14%= $3,287
Dev.Serv.Tech. $157,065 x 14%_ 521.989
(including supervisor)
TOTAL $25,276
v
H:\jimNumm�ry of finding,.doc
7
c fi
= r
FA g6
R
o00 Cm
5c� O S
r -C
PppN N
ppN IppS
CI -+N$
o i W N
O p G
b �p
oti o4S M
o t� D
m oc�co z C7 O
c"" M Lb D rr
s. C7=c 00000 �Gzyr H
5 n
0 3 cn
S g v>
N m m O W tV co CZ n C> O
h�i o OBD N m f0"M 'Mn p,rr c
co
A A W N O N n N n Z
N�
Fa O N [�
a W m tin Cn W C N IID
� B
i g a it I
!?1±
'� .. It
Q ."�1 6 N W V V to
J~
cowoWowo
f g
L;
e a co
5
® 'O
,a T m 0 w w 0 m m 0 w.m m mpco
o rrr
_
al
� �
m
m m G
cn
-1 fn
a a �
N w O N N N N N N N w N
.S
9 t+ N a 2'prl
N W n A O O + W V W O O m 0 M l
D w
w N m H N N N N N w N N T
m
ma C=J
w
4)N NNN F�
m n �►
O
A A N Obi O� VOi + A A m o Fl 1.1
V N W N m
N N N N N N N => D ►d
O N b A N O O00 o tmD j m0 O 0 0 � r +N O
M N N N N NI N N N N w N N
m-n�n n
p p
N w m mo w + o �c mm m m
N N O N N N
0
ml
0 m
W O V O S W O N N O W O m p N O W GAv N c
S N m
NNN NNvi NNNNNNN -0A H
ID N OOi o o A �O rn v+ r o y- o a
A ppW�� a N N +m -9
O 0 0 0 0 O Of G O O w O m N KY
NNN NNN NNNNNNN Op'A O� ��y
O 1p N V G O A + m t00+ mi
4 W p� O OC A a 0 A O N lD m O W N O V
'r >O N N fT m+a r
-1 o rn N
NNd' NNN NNN NNN Em 0 '�
N y 1m 0� o� �
� W m tit�W ip la fly to m m w N T
y A�vm X0'3 a
(J N tD iD iD M W OI m tT C� m m N m
NO Nm m O� W Cp m � O lD N A N + O
m 0 N O 0) O N W O + O m 0 m 0
o e o 0 2 0 pn' T m . co
nt ^y R r.
N A W w N rte+ � fll
m
0
T. N
F,F. e sda,P.d QQa m m x
R H-e:1 O. G.
ay
0J0.
q3 �9 a ddG.0 OMD Q7 NbfHHNN
G S A 3 n a 9 p 8 A a
�j n n•� N� q C A� �� P N N H M H H M N
n •5' ,'��' �' n' a �i a co rn � $a'N
N y
Np O OVf� W N N O O
n Oai O r S N N
n Nyy N H H H N H H
_ O
N N ONi O C S S O Of ^
M N H H N N H N
z s
N OWf lA A O QAi O
UNi O N
3 v A Ga w 0-N to
t0 O N S N
i
i n H H H H H H H N
' o
i A y S O N O S S A
+ f9 O O
o
� ^
W O t9 O N O O
O