Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fees Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building Inspection Commission backs DBI fee increases, asks for three‑year review
Summary
The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission approved proposed fee adjustments based on a Matrix Consulting Group study, authorizing staff to draft implementing legislation and requiring a three‑year review; the motion passed 6–1.
The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission voted 6–1 on April 28 to support a package of fee adjustments for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and to authorize staff to work with the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the Board of Supervisors and mayor.
Director Isam Hassanen presented a consultant and staff analysis showing that DBI was under‑recovering costs across many service lines and estimated a 29 percent shortfall overall — roughly $10.8 million for fiscal 2008–2009. "Overall, the study found that DBI under recovers its cost by roughly 29%. That amounts to approximately $10,800,000 in the 08/00/2009 fiscal year," Hassanen told commissioners during a detailed PowerPoint presentation of the fee study and business process reengineering (BPR) recommendations.
The study identified larger shortfalls in specific areas: plumbing permits (near 90% under‑recovered), electrical permits (about 109% under‑recovered), housing inspections (about 60% under‑recovered) and records/reports (more than 200% under‑recovered). Hassanen proposed an average 29% increase across the fee table, with variation by permit type and valuation, and recommended shifting a larger share of the permit cost to the plan‑review phase (approximately 70% plan review/30% permit issuance). He also proposed three hourly rate tiers (support services $104/hr, inspectors $170/hr, plan review $187/hr) and new fixed fees for plumbing and electrical inspections.
Commissioners and members of the public pressed for detail about the consultant's methodology, whether the 29% figure used a single low‑revenue year or a multi‑year baseline, and protections for housing customers. Hassanen said the consultant calculated unit costs by service and used last year’s workload to estimate deficits and that the housing division — shown in the report as carrying an approximately $2.5 million deficit — would be addressed by a separate, stakeholder‑driven process within six to nine months.
Public comment largely came from industry and stakeholder organizations. Michael Cohen of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development urged the commission to support the director’s proposal, saying it reflected solid outreach and analysis. Representatives from BOMA, AIA San Francisco, the Apartment Association and contractors voiced conditional support, stressing that fee revenue should translate into faster turnaround times and improved online services.
The commission amended a motion to include (a) authorization for staff to prepare implementing legislation with the City Attorney and (b) a commitment to review the fee schedule and revenue use in three years. The roll‑call vote recorded the motion carrying 6–1. President Lee, Vice President Murphy, Commissioner Hetchanova, Commissioner Mandelmann, Commissioner Romero and Commissioner Walker voted yes; Commissioner Sotari voted no.
Next steps: staff will draft ordinance language for the Board of Supervisors and mayor to consider, with an anticipated earliest effective date in September or October 2008 if approved, and the Commission expects a formal three‑year review of the fee structure following implementation.
