HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - February 10, 2009 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL
SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2009
A. Roll Call by City Clerk
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held
Tuesday, February 10, 2009, commencing at 7:03 a.m.
Present: Council Member Hitchcock, Council Member Johnson, Mayor Pro Tempore Katzakian,
Council Member Mounce, and Mayor Hansen
Absent: None
Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Johl
.. 01
B-1 Receive Information Reaardina the Buildina Division Cost Analvsis Studv (CD
City Manager King briefly introduced the subject matter of the Community Development building
cost analysis.
Interim Community Development Director Rad Bartlam provided a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the Community Development cost analysis study findings for the Building Division.
Mr. Bartlam specifically discussed fiscal analysis by project size, fully -burdened hourly rate
calculations, comparisons to regional jurisdictions, sample projects with cost, current fees and
current cost recovery, descriptions of costs, and comparison surveys.
In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. Bartlam stated the turn around time varies
from project to project, the building function never moves quick enough because every day costs
money, and the easy answer for a quicker turn around is to add people, although that goes
further away from cost recovery.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Katzakian, Mr. Bartlam stated that, since going to an
enterprise fund a few years ago, the Community Development Department had a surplus in the
first year and has been running in the deficit in the years thereafter. Mr. King stated it is important
to remember that there was no specific exercise determining what the General Fund contribution
should be for Community Development when it was switched over to an enterprise fund.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Bartlam stated the fees were last reviewed in 2004
and while most jurisdictions try to review annually it is difficult. Mr. King provided an overview of
the table of valuations in the Building Codes, some jurisdictions adopting fees as proposed by the
Uniform Building Codes, and the challenges that ensued with respect to charging more than the
cost of the service.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Bartlam stated the City can charge for 100% of
cost recovery for a project; although, the recovery may not necessarily be the 100% recovery for
the department. Mr. King stated if there was a 100% department cost recovery, a situation may
arise where the cost of the permit is equal to the cost for the project itself and a percentage
recovery will likely be recommended as a result.
In response to Council Member Hitchcock, Mr. Bartlam stated generally speaking the General
Fund contribution to Community Development should be approximately ten percent.
Continued February 10, 2009
In response to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Bartlam stated operating costs may include training,
consultants, rent, vehicles, gas, electricity, and other similar costs that are assessed to other
departments.
In response to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Bartlam stated in his opinion the current deficit is attributable
to the City not taking advantage of the good times with fully -burdened cost recovery and the
down turn of the economy.
In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. King stated the matter will likely be coming back for
City Council consideration within the next month or so based on the schedule.
In response to Jeffrey Kirst, Deputy City Manager Jordan Ayers stated the surplus amount for the
first year as an enterprise fund was approximately $80,000. Mr. Kirst stated that, while it is
difficult, there will need to be balance between peaks and lows in the business.
C. Comments by Public on Non-Aaenda Item
None.
D. Admournment
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 a.m.
ATTEST:
Randi Johl
City Clerk
2
AGENDA ITEM 2 04
• CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
rM
AGENDA TITLE: Receive information regarding the Building Division Cost Analysis Study
MEETING DATE: February 10,2009
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive information and make comments regarding the Building
Division Analysis Study.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2007, the Community Development and Finance
departments prepared a Cost Analysis Study to determine the fully burdened cost of providing the
various services within the Building Division. After meeting with the Building Industry Association of the
Delta, it was determined that more detail was necessary in order to meet the current requirements for
such analysis.
In August 2008, the City contracted with the firm MGT of America to prepare a cost of services analysis
that would meet legal requirements and methodology outlined by the BIA. The analysis included 1) fiscal
analysis by project size; 2) fully burdened hourly rate calculation; and 3) comparison analysis to similarly
sized jurisdictions within our region. Once the draft study was completed, staff met with the Chief
Executive Officer of the Building Industry Association of the Delta along with many of its members from
Lodi. We discussed the Cost Analysis Study, answered members' questions and gave them several
weeks to review the study.
Attached is a copy of the letter we received on January 30, 2009 from John Beckman of the BIA. The
BIA found no errors in the assumptions, calculations or methods. The BIA feels that the analysis seems
to have been conducted in a reasonable mannerwith a thorough investigation into actual cost to the City
for services provided.
As the City Council will note, the current fee structure is not recovering the actual cost of service. As a
result, a fee increase is justified to prevent the General Fund from subsidizing private development. Staff
believes that there are at least three policy questions for the City Council to consider as outlined below:
Is the level of service provided adequate? Perhaps the first and most important question that should
be asked relates to the level of service provided. In other words, are we doing a satisfactoryjob? The
cost analysis that is being presented assumes that the number of personnel and the various functions
that they carry out is appropriatefor the amount of work currently undertaken.
Whatshould be the percentage of cost recovery forthe Division? Current cost recovery rages from
22% - 93% depending on project valuation (page 4 of the MGT Study). As the Council is aware, the
Division is part of the Community Development Fund. The Fund was set up as an enterprise in order to
better balance the services provided with the revenues charged. It is not appropriate to collect the full
cost of the Division through fee revenue as there is a percentage of the time that is devoted to providing
service to the general public. This amount of time should be compensated for by the General Fund as a
APPROVED: JZZ:N,-
B� ng, City Manager
transfer. It is our opinion that approximately 10 percent of the overall cost is related to non recoverable
expense.
What should be the timing of a fee increase? This third question assumes that some increase is
necessary given the answers to the previous questions, so the question is how quickly the increase
should take place? We will propose that some incremental increases take place over the next year, but
the full amount may be an economic deterrent at the wrong time.
FISCAL IMPACT: NIA
FUNDING AVAILABLE: N/A
Konradt Bartlam
Interim Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Fee Study
2. BIA Letter
3. MGT of America Companyprofiie
Cost Analysis Study Findings
Building Division
City of Lodi
January 2009
.1111
IV 14L 0 111 NOW
,*./ 14
n ehAPDIrA IKIr
V 1 / I `I I L 1% 1. / , 1 11 . .
455 Capital Mall, Suite 600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tele: 916-443-3411
Fax: 916-443-1766
www.mgtamer.com
MGT Sacramento
455 Capitol Mall
Suite 600
Sacramento, CA 95814
p: (9 16) 443-3411
f: (916) 443-1766
www.mgtofamerica.com
January 11, 2009
J
n
1111171-11 �i
1V1\
OF AMERICA, I N C.
Mr. Dennis Canright
Building Official
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Dennis:
We have completed our draft analysis of the cost of providing building inspection
and plan check services to the Lodi community. This study was conducted in
accordance with California Government Code 66014 cost principles. Our report
includes the following three components:
1) Fiscal analysis by project size (page 4). This schedule displays the results
of our analysis. Each valuation threshold, from $500 projects up to $1,000,000
projects, was evaluated to determine if the fee currently charged is sufficient to
recapture costs expended. The results indicate the City's fees are set below
cost, especially for low valuation projects. Actual cost recovery ranges from 23%
to 93%. Time motion calculations are provided in the appendix on page 10.
2) Fully -burdened hourly rate calculations.
The MGT rate model builds indirect costs into the division's hourly rate structure.
The proper identification of labor hours as either "direct or indirect" is crucial to
the objective of full cost recovery. Indirect labor can be thought of as supervisory
or clerical whereas direct labor involves plan check or inspection. Because
indirect labor cannot be traced to a specific unit of service and consequently
cannot be "billed," indirect costs must be recovered whenever direct labor is
billed. This practice is commonly referred to as building "fully burdened" labor
rates. Failure to accurately identify indirect labor hours will result in annual
revenues that produce less than full cost recovery.
• Personal Services Analysis (page 6) — this schedule lists each staff
category within the Building division. Staff are categorized as either direct
or indirect labor.
• Indirect Cost Rate Calculation (page 7) — this schedule establishes a ratio
of indirect cost to direct salaries and benefits. The Building division's
indirect cost rate is calculated at 141 %. The five elements of indirect cost
incorporated include:
Page 1
o Indirect labor — administrative and supervisory staff costs.
o Services and supplies
o Community Development Admin — a portion of Community
Development Administration costs are charged to the Building
division.
o Planning division support — 10% of the Planning division's budget is
allocated to the Building division for support provided.
o Operating Reserve — City policy is to maintain a 15% operating
reserve.
• Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Schedule (page 8) — Salary and benefit costs,
plus a 141 % indirect cost markup are divided by average annual billable
staff hours to arrive at fully burdened hourly rates. A breakdown of the
average billable staff hours are provided in the table below:
ANNUAL BILLABLE HOURS CALCULATION
Hours
Description
Calculation
2,080
Total Annual Hours
52 weeks * 40 hours
96
Holidays
13.5 days * 8 hours
80
Vacation
2 weeks * 40 hours
80
Sick
12 Days * 8 hours
52
Daily Briefing/Staff Mtgs
52 weeks *1 hours
177
Admin work & Breaks
10% of work day, 0.10 * remaining hours
0
\17/
Training
40 hours
7555
Annual Billable Hours
3) Comparison analysis to regional jurisdictions (page 9). This table
compares Lodi's building fees to those charged by other regional jurisdictions.
To facilitate comparison among many jurisdictions the fees are limited to building
permit and plan check only. Each jurisdiction charges a set of additional fees
that vary from one jurisdiction to another.
The figures presented in the comparison survey reflect a 'market basket' of what
other cities charge for building services. It does not reflect each jurisdictions
cost, as each jurisdiction may not be aware of their full cost and/or may
consciously price their services above or below full cost
The jurisdictions included in the comparison analysis include:
• Manteca
Page 2
• Modesto
• Stockton
• Tracy
• Turlock
• Vacaville
It has been a pleasure to work with your City staff. Feel free to contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Wakefield
Senior Consultant
MGT of America
Page 3
CITY OF LODI
BUILDING DIVISION
FISCAL 2008/09
$500 valuation project
Plan Check
$264
$42
Inspection
$193
$65
$2,000 valuation project
Plan Check
$279
$58
Inspection
$406
$90
$25,000 valuation project
Plan Check
$367
$328
Inspection
$784
$505
$50,000 valuation project
Plan Check
$415
$540
Inspection
$1,213
$831
$100,000 valuation project
Plan Check
$845
$833
Inspection
$1,427
$1,282
$500,000 valuation project
Plan Check
$3,774
$2,712
Inspection
$6,113
$4,172
$1,000,000 valuation project
Plan Check
$6,265
$4,703
Inspection
$8,684
$7,236
Notes:
The Department is currently using 2005 building valuation factors. It is recommended that 2008 valuation factors be instituted.
Repeat unit dwellings will be assessed a plan checking fee of 25% of the building permit fee.
Reinstatement Fee: if a permit is not finaled within a two-year period, the permit must be reinstated. The reinstatement fee
varies according to how complete the project is. The following schedule shall be followed for reinstatement fees:
Passed foundation inspection: 75% of original fee.
Passed frame inspection: 50% of orignial fee.
Passed drywall inspection: 25% of original fee.
MGT recommends institution of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy fee of $270.
MGT recommends institution of a Permit Extension fee of $195.
MGT recommends a Change of Address/ Owner fee of $135.
MGT recommends Application Revisions be charged on an hourly basis of $135 per hour.
Hourly Rate: for services not specifically addressed an hourly rate of $135 shall be charged.
MGT recommends the following services be charged on a flat fee basis:
Reroof - Residential $290 Spa $455
Reroof - Commercial $370 Mobile Home Setup $582
Pool $840 Water Heater $150
Pool & Spa $910
1) Figures include structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing services.
Page 4
City of Lodi Building Fee Table
Current Fee Table
Valuation
Base Fee
Rate Per Unit
$1 to $500
$50.00
$501 to $2,000
$50.00
$1.30 per $100*
$2001 to $25,000
$69.50
$14.00 per $1,000*
$25,001 to $50,000
$391.50
$10.10 per $1,000*
$50,001 to $100,000
$644.00
$7.00 per $1,000*
$100,001 to $500,000
$994.00
$5.60 per $1,000*
$500,001 to $1,000,000
$3,234.00
$4.75 per $1,000*
$1,000,001 and Up
$5,609.00
$3.15 per $1,000*
*or fraction thereof over initial base amount
Plan Check Fee
Disabled Access
Energy
EMP Supplement
Page 5
65% of building permit
5% of building permit
5% residential and 10% non-resid.
based on item count
10
11
12
13
CITY OF LODI
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FISCAL 2008/09
Personnel Services Analysis
Administrative Secretary (50%)
Comm Dev Director (50%)
Administrative Clerk
0.5
0.5
1.0
$39,078
$93,118
$62,679
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
39,078
93,118
62,679
Building Inspector II
Building Official
4.0
1.0
$350,105
$146,427
100.00%
146,427
100.00%
350,105
Permit Technician
PC Engineer
2.0
1.0
$132,055
$97,382
100.00%
100.00%
132,055
97,382
Total:
10.00
$
920,844
37.06% $
341,302
62.94% $
579,542
Page 6
CITY OF LODI
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FISCAL 2008/09
Indirect Cost Rate Calculation
A) Personnel Analysis:
Salary and Wages
Distribution %:
Temporary & Overtime
Benefits
Subtotal:
$
$
$
$
920,844
100.00%
20,118
-
940,962
$
$
$
341,302
37.06%
-
341,302
$
$
$
$
579,542
62.94%
20,118
-
599,660
B) Other Operating Expenses:
Professional Services
$
85,000
$
85,000
Books & Periodicals
$
10,000
10,000
Training & Education
$
12,000
12,000
Other Materials & Supplies
$
51,354
51,354
Postage & Cellular Phone Charges
6,400
6,400
Subtotal:$
164,754 $
- $
79,754
$
85,000
C) Cost Allocation Plan Allocations:
September 2007 MuniFinancial Plan'
$
166,384
$
166,384
10% of Planning Budget
92,487
92,487
15% Operating Reserve
165,857
165,857
D) Total Costs
$
1,530,444 $
- $
845,784
$
684,660
1 Consists of support from: City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, Information Technology,
Finance Revenue/Collections, Finance Accounting, Budget and Treasury, Non -Departmental and Facility Maintenance.
Page 7
CITY OF LODI
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FISCAL 2008/09
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Position
FTE
1 Administrative Secretary (50%)
0.5
2 Comm Dev Director (50%)
0.5
3 Administrative Clerk
1.0
4 Building Inspector II
4.0
5 Building Official
1.0
6 Permit Technician
2.0
7 PC Engineer
1.0
8
9
40.31
0
56.86
1
97.17
2
56.29
3
79.40
Annual
Sal/Ben
$ 39,078
$ 93,118
$ 62,679
$ 350,105
$ 146,427
$ 132,055
$ 97,382
TOTAL: 10.00 $ 920,844
Hourly salary rate is calculated by dividing annual salary by 1555 productive hours.
Hourly overhead rate is applied to hourly salary/benefits.
'.•-
Sal/Ben
Overhead
Total
$
50.27
$
119.78
$
40.31
$
56.86
$
97.17
$
56.29
$
79.40
$
135.69
$
94.18
$
132.83
$
227.01
$
42.47
$
59.90
$
102.36
$
62.63
$
88.34
$
150.97
Hourly salary rate is calculated by dividing annual salary by 1555 productive hours.
Hourly overhead rate is applied to hourly salary/benefits.
'.•-
COMPARISON SURVEY - CITY OF LODI
Page 9
LODi
MANTECA
MODESTO
STOCKTON
TRACY
TURLOCK
(CURRENT
(REV/EMNG
(REV/EW/NG
(REV/EMNG
(REV/EW/NG
(REV/EMNG
ProjectValuationFEES)
FEES)
FEES)
FEES)
FEES)
FEES)
VACAVILLE
$115
$84
$122
$229
$138
$103
$112
$2,000 Valuation Project
$646
$517
$533
$1,290
$662
$578
$572
$25,000 Valuation Project
$1,063
$851
$858
$2,128
$1,086
$949
$933
$50,000 Valuation Project
$1,640
$1,312
$1,305
$3,280
$1,663
$1,464
$1,433
$100,000 Valuation Project
$5,336
$4,182
$4,097
$10,435
$5,359
$4,764
$4,940
$500,000 Valuation Project
$9,255
$7,257
$7,100
$18,089
$9,278
$8,270
$8,558
$1,000,000 Valuation Project
Page 9
Appendix - Fully Burdened Cost Calculations
Fully
Hourly Burdened
Project: Task Staff Hours' Rate Cost
$500 valuation project Plan Review
PC Engineer
1.75
$150.97
$264.20
Inspection
Building Inspector
0.46
$135.69
$62.42
Travel
Building Inspector
0.51
$135.69
$69.20
Re -inspection
Building Inspector
0.45
$135.69
$61.06
Issue Resolution
Building Inspector
2.3
$135.69
$456.89
$2,000 valuation project Plan Review
PC Engineer
1.85
$150.97
$279.30
Inspection
Building Inspector
1.9
$135.69
$257.82
Travel
Building Inspector
0.84
$135.69
$113.98
Re -inspection
Building Inspector
0.25
$135.69
$33.92
$685.03
$25,000 valuation project Plan Review
PC Engineer
2.43
$150.97
$366.87
Inspection
Building Inspector
2
$135.69
$271.39
Travel
Building Inspector
0.8
$135.69
$108.56
Re -inspection
Building Inspector
0.68
$135.69
$92.27
Issue Resolution
Building Inspector
2.3
$135.69
$312.10
$1,151.18
$50,000 valuation project Plan Review
PC Engineer
2.75
$150.97
$415.18
Inspection
Building Inspector
4
$135.69
$542.78
Travel
Building Inspector
1.64
$135.69
$222.54
Re -inspection
Building Inspector
1
$135.69
$135.69
Issue Resolution
Building Inspector
2.3
$135.69
$312.10
$1,628.28
$100,000 valuation project Plan Review
PC Engineer
5.6
$150.97
$845.45
Inspection
Building Inspector
6
$135.69
$814.16
Travel
Building Inspector
1.29
$135.69
$175.04
Re -inspection
Building Inspector
1.23
$135.69
$166.90
Issue Resolution
Building Inspector
2
$135.69
$271.39
$2,272.95
$500,000 valuation project Plan Review
PC Engineer
25
$150.97
$3,774.33
Inspection
Building Inspector
17.8
$135.69
$2,415.35
Travel
Building Inspector
4.25
$135.69
$576.70
Re -inspection
Building Inspector
8.5
$135.69
$1,153.40
Issue Resolution
Building Inspector
14.5
$135.69
$1,967.56
$9,887.34
$1,000,000 valuation project Plan Review
PC Engineer
41.5
$150.97
$6,265.39
Inspection
Building Inspector
39
$135.69
$5,292.06
Travel
Building Inspector
4.6
$135.69
$624.19
Re -inspection
Building Inspector
4.9
$135.69
$664.90
Issue Resolution
Building Inspector
15.5
$135.69
$2,103.25
1) hours based on a sample of Permits Plus data.
Page 10
$14,949.80
Am-,4WRSARY
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
OF THE DELTA
CELEBRATINGTWENTY YEARS
OF B uiLDING EXCELLENCE
�������D
January 30,2009
OFFICERS
FEB 0 3 2009
Dudley McGee
Rad Bartlam
Kimball Hill Homes
Mahesh Ranchhod
City of Lodi COMMUN7!jfiELOPMENT OEPT
LODI
American -USA Homes
(;� Y pF
221 W Pine St.
Jeremy White
Lodi, CA 95240
The Grupe Company
John Looper
Top Grade Construction
Rad,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
On behalf of the members of the Building Industry Association I want to
Debbie Armstrong
thank you for sitting down with us to discuss the Cost Analysis Study.
Old Republic Title Company
The analysis seems to have been conducted in a reasonable manner with a
Matt Arnaiz
thorough investigation into actual costs to the City for services provided.
H.D. Arnaiz Corporation
Rod Attebery
Neumiller & Beardslee
We have found no errors in the assumptions, calculations or methods for
Rey Chavez
preparing this fee update. Also we are pleased to know the City will be
Kelly -Moore Paint Company
Ryan Gerding
sensitive to the current conditions of the economy when implementing any
Pulte Homes
fee increases.
Cathy Ghan
Oak Valley Community Bank
George Gibson
One notable item learned in the analysis is the category of new
FCB Homes
development related to residential construction had the highest percentage
Steve Herum
Herum Crabtree Brown
of cost recovery out of all categories. This shows that new residential
Wayne LeBaron
construction has been paying its fair share.
LeBaron Ranches
Terry Miles
Teichert Construction
Thank you,
Carol s
Visionaryary Home Builders, Inc.
Jim Panagopoulos
A.G. Spanos Companies
John Beckman
Denise Tschirky
Chief Executive Officer
Matthews Homes
LIFETIME DIRECTORS
Dennis Bennett
Bennett Development
Bill Filios
AKF Development, LLC
Mike Hakeem
Hakeem, Ellis & Marengo
Jeffrey Kirst
Tokay Development
Steve Moore
Calandev Development
Zandra Morris
Old Republic Title Company
Toni Raymus
Raymus Homes, Inc.
Tony Souza
Souza Realty & Development
509 WEST WEBER AVENUE, SUITE 410
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95203-3167
(209) 235-7831 PH
(209) 235-7837 FX
MGT OF AMERICA - COMPANY PROFILE
QUALIFICATIONS
Corporate: MGT is a national research and management consulting firm specializing in providing
management and financial services to public -sector clients. Founded in Tallahassee, Florida in 1974, MGT
has grown to include regional offices in Sacramento, California; Austin, Texas; and Olympia, Washington.
The firm's staff of over 130 professionals brings a wealth of knowledge and depth of understanding to all
client engagements, delivering the highest quality and timely services to clients.
Over the past 33 years, the firm has successfully served more than 3,200 clients in 48 states and several
foreign countries. Our mission "to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governments, nonprofits,
and other organizations serving the public" is supported by the capacity to deliver an extensive range of
services. These services include:
Cost Studies
Performance Audits and Management
Reviews
Performance Measurement & Management
Business Process Reengineering
Strategic Planning
Investigative Audits
Program Evaluation
Information Technology Staff Augmentation
Cost Services Division: The firm recently acquired Public Resource Management Group, LLC (PRM),
the fastest-growing provider of cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate studies, state mandated cost
claims, and user fee studies in the United States. This acquisition has significantly expanded MGT's ability
to provide a wide array of costing services to state and local governments. The Costing Services
Division totals 20 professionals. There is no firm in the marketplace today that can offer a client the
user fee expertise that MGT delivers. The client -first philosophy is ingrained in the fabric and history of
both MGT and PRM.
The listing of clients served (please see below) are those of the MGT consultants currently with the firm
and not, as may be represented by others, the product of former employees.
Our senior level consultants are recognized as national experts in their respective fields. In addition,
most of our professionals have "walked in their clients' shoes" having worked in public service prior to
starting their consulting careers. Our firm is small enough to provide personalized service with
reasonable fees; yet, large enough to serve a national client base and exceed the requirements of the
most sophisticated, demanding clients.
Following is a list of our user fee clients from the past five years inclusive:
CALIFORNIA USER FEE CLIENTS
❖ Agoura Hills
❖
La Habra
❖
Riverside County
❖ Antioch
❖
La Mesa
❖
Roseville
❖ Arcata
❖
Livermore
❖
Sacramento
F
MGT
OF AMERICA, INC.
❖
Calabasas
❖
Long Beach
❖
San Diego Engineering
❖
Ceres
❖
Los Alamitos
❖
San Francisco
❖
Cupertino
❖
Los Gatos
❖
San Mateo County
❖
Daly City
❖
Modesto Dev Dpt.
Assessor
***+Dixon
***+Newport
Beach
'•''
Santa Ana
•'•
Emeryville
❖
Orange County Fire
❖
Santa Barbara
***+Encinitas
***+Pittsburg
'•''
Santa Clara
•'•
Folsom
❖
Pleasanton
❖
South Lake Tahoe
❖
Fremont
❖
Redlands
'•''
Whittier
❖
Irvine
❖
Redondo Beach
❖
Yuba City
MGTVP40
OF AMERICA, INC.
Ilion - ■
iii �i dL
i
OF AMFR ICA INC_
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Mr. Wakefield has an extensive background working with local government.
His 20 years of experience includes senior positions with three major
consulting firms, all focused on governmental cost accounting.
Mr. Wakefield is currently a Senior Consultant, having joined MGT in 2004
after leaving a senior position at Muni -Financial, a well known, California-
based local governmental consulting firm.
Since joining MGT, Mr. Wakefield has served as co-director of the firm's
user -fee projects, affording him extensive experience with the complex
analysis of development related fee-for-service areas. He has a thorough
understanding of the federal and state laws governing the cost analysis of
user -fee -related services. Mr. Wakefield is a full-time employee and has
completed hundreds of consulting engagements for local governments
during his career.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
Financial
Project Management. Mr. Wakefield has managed numerous large
governmental user -fee projects during his 20 -year career. His management
experience includes projects for large governmental agencies such as San
Jose, San Francisco, Anaheim, and Sacramento in California and many
others.
Research and Statistical Background. Mr. Wakefield recently
represented MGT and the City of Long Beach at legislative hearings at the
State Capitol in Sacramento, California. The hearings were conducted by
the state legislative committees determining pending legislation to the full
cost analysis process to be adopted by state departments. Mr. Wakefield
presented information related to the "best practices" adopted by large
governmental agencies in the western United States.
Cost Allocation. Mr. Wakefield has completed cost allocation related
projects for hundreds of governmental agencies over his career. He has
managed projects for large governmental agencies such as Anaheim, San
Francisco, Sacramento, and San Jose in California.
JEFF WAKEFIELD
SENIOR CONSULTANT
YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE: 20
MGT of America, Inc.
Senior Consultant
Aug. 2007—Present
Public Resource
Management Group LLC
Senior Project Director
2004—July 2007
MuniFinancial
2000-2004
David M. Griffith and
Associates, LTD
1991-2000
EDUCATION/
CERTIFICATIONS
BS, Accounting,
University of Redlands
JEFF WAKEFIELD
PAGE 2
SPECIFIC REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
2004—Present. MGT: Mr. Wakefield is a senior member of the firm's cost accounting group.
He is responsible for project management, direction, analysis and senior level consulting
assignments. He is a recognized state expert in the full cost analysis of development related
user fee services provided by local government. His clients have included some of the nation's
largest local governments including: San Jose, Long Beach, San Francisco and Anaheim.
2000-2004: Muni -Financial: While at Muni -Financial, Mr. Wakefield held a number of senior
positions. He was responsible for the development of the firm's cost allocation plan and user fee
software.
1991-2000: David M. Griffith and Associates, LTD: Mr. Wakefield joined DMG as a
junior level consultant and spent nine years working in all areas of cost analysis consulting. He
left DMG as a Senior Project Manager to assist another firm in its initial efforts of building a cost
accounting consulting practice
MGT�H
OF AMERICA, INC.
City of Lodi
Community Development, Building
Division.
Cost Analysis Study Findings
Cost Analysis Study
Fiscal analysis by project size
Fully -burdened hourly rate calculations.
Comparison analysis to regional jurisdictions
Cost Analysis Study
Fiscal analysis by project size
. Valuation threshold: from $500 upto $1,000,000
The results: The City's fees are set below cost,
especially for low valuation projects.
. Actual cost recovery ranges from 23% to 93%.
Cost Analysis Study
u I ly-burdened hourly rate calculations.
The MGT rate model builds indirect costs into the
division's hourly rate structure.
The proper identification of labor hours as either
"direct or indirect"
Indirect labor — Supervisory or clerical
• Cannot be traced to a specific unit of service
• cannot be "billed"
0 Direct labor - Plan check or inspection services.
Cost Analysis Study
Comparison analysis to regional cities
• Manteca
• Modesto
• Stockton
• Tracy
• Turlock
• Vacaville
Fiscal Analysis by Project Size
Sample Projects
Full Cost
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery %
$500 Valuation Project
$457
$105
23%
$2,000 Valuation Project
$685
$148
22%
$25,000 Valuation Project
$1,151
$833
72%
$50,000 Valuation Project
$1,628
$1,371
84%
$100,000 Valuation Project
$2,273
$2,116
93%
$500,000 Valuation Project
$9,887
$6,884
70%
$1,000,000 Valuation Project
$14,950
$11,939
80%
Cost Rate Calculation
Description
of Cost
Total Cost
Allowable
Indirect
Allowable
direct
Personnel Cost
$940,962
$341,302
$599,660
Operating Expenses
$1641754
$797754
$857000
Total Cost
$1,530,444
$8457784
$6847660
Comparison Survey -City of Lodi
Project Valuation
Lodi
(Current
Fees)
Manteca
(Reviewing
Fees)
Modesto
(Reviewing
Fees)
Stockton
(Reviewing
Fees)
Tracy
(Reviewing
Fees)
Turlock
(Reviewing
Fees)
Vacaville
$2,000 Valuation Project
$115
$84
$122
$229
$138
$103
$112
$25,000 Valuation Project
$646
$571
$533
$1,290
$662
$578
$872
$50,000 Valuation Project
$1,063
$851
$858
$2,128
$1,086
$949
$933
$100,000 Valuation Project
$1,640
$1,312
$1,305
$3,280
$1,663
$1,464
$1,422
$500,000 Valuation Project
$5,336
$4,182
$4,097
$10,435
$5,359
$4,764
$4,940
$1,000,000 Valuation Project
$9,255
$7,275
$7,100
$18,089
$9,278
$8,270
$8,558