The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - February 2, 1999 SS212 CITY OF LODI INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING "SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM 305 W. PINE STREET TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2,1999 An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, February 2, 1999 commencing at 7:00 a.m. ROLL CALL Present: Council Members — Hitchcock (left at 7:50 a.m.), Mann, Nakanishi, Pennino (left at 7:45 a.m.) and Land (Mayor) Absent: Council Members — None Also Present: City Manager Flynn, Deputy City Manager Keeter, Public Works Director Prima, Community Development Director Bartlam, Finance Director McAthie, Police Chief Hansen, Parks and Recreation Director Williamson, City Attorney Hays and City Clerk Reimche Also present in the audience was a representative from the Lodi News Sentinel and The Record. TOPIC(S) 1. Fees (Police, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Planning) ADJOURNMENT No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:20 a.m. w ATTEST: Alice M RAgh ed City Clerk 1997-99 FINANCIAL PLAN ANi) izUD(;r:l' RI-W,ET POLICIES OTiIER FFFS AND RATES A. Ongoing Review Fees and rates will be reviewed incl ulxlated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are correct nrnat appropriate based on the changing needs of the community, i.e. economic concerns, social isciieq. public safety. R. General Concepts Regarding the (tom of Service Fees and Rates The use of fees and rates should be subject to the following general concepts: Revenues normally will not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service. 2. Cost recovery goals should he based on the total cost of delivering the service, including dire -t costs, departmental administration costs, and organization wide cost such as accounting. personnel, date processing, vehicle maintenance and insurance. 3. The method of assessing and collectRt fees should he a, simple as possible in order to rc(hi r the administrative cost of collection. 4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to smaller. infrequent users of the service and the influence rates and fees have on economic developmecit. 5. A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for various programs based on the factors discussed above. C. Low Cast Recovery Services Based on the criteria discussed above. the following types of services should have very low cost recovery goals. in selected circumstances, there may be specific activities within the broad scope cif services provided that should have user charges associated with them. However, the primary source of funding for the operation as a whole should be general purpose revenues, not user fees. 1. Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform, community wide basis such as streets. parks and general purpose buildings. 2. Delivery of social service programs and economic development activities. R-6 1997-99 FINANCIAL. PLAN AND BUDGET BIIDGM, POLICIES 1). Comparability with Other Communities I. Fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in seeing City fees. There are many factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For example: a. What level of cost recovery is dheir fee intended to achieve compared widt Lodi's cost recovery objectives? b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees? C. When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated? d. What level of service do they provide conhparod with Locli's service or performance standards? e. Is their rate structure significantly different than I.odi's and what is it intended to achieve? ?. Surveys comparing the City's fees to other communities is useful backgrouixl information in setting fees for several reasons: a. They reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the reasonableness of the City's fees. b. If Prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost effective the City provides services. These are difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different cities. POLICE DEPARTMENT Cost Recovery Summary Proposed Fee Increases Current Proposed Impound Vehicle Release Fee $ 45.00 $ 75.00 CCW Applicant -Every 2 years City of Lodi Fee - $ 15.00 $ 25.00 State Mandated Fee 73.00 90.00 (as of 1/99) CCW Renewal -Every 2 years City of Lodi Fee $ 3.00 $ 15.00 State Mandated Fee 25.00 42.00 (as of 1/99) Range Fees $ 13.00 $ 25.00 Massage Proprietor $ 63.50 $ 313.00 (Additional Investigative Fee of $250) Massage Technician $ 63.50 $ 213.50 (Additional Investigative Fee of $150) POLICE DEPARTMENT Cost Recovery Summary Proposed New Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee Outside Agency Mechanical Sign -off 0 $ 10.00 VIN Verification 0 $ 35.00 Commercial Alarm Permit Annual Renewal 0 $ 25.00 Excessive False Alarm Fee 0 $ 50.00 DUI Cost Recovery — Arrest No Collision 0 $ 125.00 Collision No Injury 0 $ 200.00 Collision with Injury 0 $ 300.00 Collision Fatal 0 $1,000.00 Fire Dept. Response 0 $ 150.00 Lodi Parks and Recreation Department Proposed Fee Increases Estimated New Revenue Program Participants Old Fee New Fee Revenue BOBS Youth Sports 4000 $0 $1 $4,000 BOBS Competitive Soccer 300 $0 $2 $600 Flag Football 333 $20 $25 $1,665 Junior Basketball 4rd-5th Grade 424 $20 $25 $2,120 Junior Basketball 6th Grade 170 $20 $28 $1,360 Public Swim - Blakely Youth 6316 $0.75 $1 $1,579 Public Swim - Blakely Adult 916 $1.25 $1 -$229 Public Swim - Lake Beach Youth 8500 $0.75 $1 $2,125 Public Swim - Lake Beach Adult 5500 $1.25 $2 $4,125 Swim Lessons 1000 $15 $20 $5,000 Summer Swim League 500 $15 $20 $2,500 Lodi City Swim League 130 $0 $3 $390 Adult Softball 209 $210-$325 $225-$340 $3,135 Adult Soccer 14 $195 $205 $140 Adult Basketball 22 $60-$300 $70-$310 $220 Adult Volleyball - 28 $140 $150 $280 TOTAL 1 Legion Loewen's Den Non -Resident 3 $29,010 Facility Uses Old Fee New Fee Revenue Youth Shelter Resident 10 $100 $110 $100 Youth Shelter Non -Resident 6 $110 $120 $60 Hughes Shelter Resident 16 $45 $55 $160 Hughes Shelter Non -Resident 5 $55 $65 $50 Hughes Whole Resident 13 $90 $100 $130 Hughes Whole Non -Resident 4 $110 $120 $40 Parsons Shelter Resident 21 $35 $45 $210 Parsons Shelter Non -Resident 3 $45 $55 $30 Rotary Shelter Resident 9 $40 $50 $90 Rotary Shelter Non -Resident 1 $50 $60 $10 NEW Kiwanis Picnic Non -Profit 4 n/a $50 $200 NEW Kiwanis Picnic Resident 25 n/a $75 $1,875 NEW Kiwanis Picnic Non -Resident 4 n/a $85 $340 Emerson Lions Den Resident 29 $30 $40 $290 Emerson Lions Den Non -Resident 8 $40 $50 $80 Legion Loewen's Den Resident 35 $30 $40 $350 Legion Loewen's Den Non -Resident 3 $40 $50 $30 Salas Picnic Area Resident 18 $35 $40 $90 Salas Picnic Area Non -Resident 4 $45 $50 $20 Kofu Building Resident 6 $40 $50 $60 Lee Jones Building Resident 32 $40 $50 $320 TOTAL $4,535 Lodi Lake Vehicle - Weekend/Hol. Vehicles Old Fee New Fee Revenue Resident 7132 $2 $3 $7,132 Non -Resident 2213 $3 $4 $2,213 TOTAL $9,345 GRAND TOTAL $42,890 Nates $1 per Activity $1 per RAB (2x) $1 per RAB (3x) $15 per team $10 per team $10 per team $10 per team MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department 0 To: City Council City Manager From: Public Works Director Date: January 28, 1999 Subject: Encroachment Permit Fees The City owns or controls a great deal of property within the city limits. The vast majority of this property is in the form of street and alley rights-of-way and easements. The Public Works Department is tasked with reviewing and approving requests for use or encroachments onto this right-of-way through our encroachment ordinance and permit process. Encroachment permits have been issued for a wide variety of activities, such as block parties, sidewalk sales, tree removal, fences, signs, use of parking stalls, sidewalk reconstruction, and work on utilities ranging from minor maintenance to major construction. The number and types of encroachment permits issued over the last three calendar years are listed in the attached table. For each encroachment permit listed, the City incurs costs for staff time to process the encroachment request. In many cases, this process requires engineering review and field inspections. Over an entire year, the commitment of staff time to this activity is significant, amounting to the equivalent of nearly one full staff position. Currently, funding for this comes from taxpayers via the General Fund. No fees are charged to cover processing, engineering review, or inspection. In order to defray some of the costs incurred, adoption of an encroachment permit fee should be considered. The Public Works Department is currently drafting a fee schedule for consideration. Our cost -recovery target, based on our estimate of time involved, is $40,000 per year. As a frame of reference, we have conducted a survey of other agencies to determine what fees, if any, are being charged. Ten agencies responded to our request for information. Because the type and amount of fees vary, six representative categories were selected for comparison purposes and are attached for your information. While the fees are not consistent, it is evident that charging, in some form, for the services associated with the encroachment permit process is common practice. In addition to encroachment permit fees, a fee increase for transportation permits and right-of-way abandonments and other special administrative actions should considered. CJS Richard C. Prima, Jr. Public Works Director RCP/RKM/lm Attachments cc: City Engineer ENCPRMTFEES.DOC Sheet1 PUBLIC WORKS YEARI 1996 I 1997 1 1998 I I UTILITIES: 1 PG&E i 12. 181 8 PT&T291 28 33 CABLE I I (Public: Media One, Continental Cable, MCI) 1 311 6 (Private) 21, 21 2 I t 1 Sidewalk/Driveways 1 33 j 521 44 Tree Removal (Only) ! 1; 2 Improvement Plans: (City Approved) 61 15' 7 On-site misc. construction only 1 31 2 (laterals, thru-the-curb drains, etc.) 1 Monitoring Wells, Geophysical Testing 21 41 5 Other: construction related on and off-site activity 1 3' 2! 3 (laterals, thru-the-curb drains, etc.) 1 1 Use of right-of-way for on-site activity 1 j Parking stalls reserved: I 14; 21 16 (For construction equipment and/or activity) ! 1 Sidewalk closed: (Installation, removal of awnings, 71 61 4 roofing, cleaning bldg. facade, placement reg. signs) Other i 19 31 5 I I I ' Block Parties (Single Residential Block Closure) 351 401 39 Festivals (Single Block Closure -Open to the Public) ! 81 6! 24 Parades/Caravans j 51 41 6 Major Events: (Multiple block closure w/street actitivities) 21 71 3 Walk-a-thons, Marathons, Triathlons 2 41 3 Ribbons, Banners, Flag Displaying 11 1 Sidewalk Sales (No street closure) ! 1 Other (Painting addresses on curbs, single or partial 8', 10': 12 street closure, use of city property, parking stalls, etc.) Vendors - Stationary sidewalk 21 1 (Fences, Buildings, Structures, Pools, Signs, etc.) 1 71 51 15 (Waster containers, Planter Boxes, Newspaper 5, 9 2 Dispensers, Private Mail Dispensers, etc.) I TOTAL ISSUED! 2011 256 243 Page 1 Sheetl PUBLIC WORKS Page 2 MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development (D Department To: City Manager From: Community Development Date: January 28, 1999 Subject: Planning Division Fees As part of the upcoming budget process, the department has initiated a review of the fees currently charged for the services provided. Within the Building and Safety function, fees are typically set once the codes are adopted. This process is anticipated this year. In the Planning Division, the fees charged have not been reviewed since 1993. When looking at fees for development related activities, a certain philosophical question arises. Should the community subsidize development? Obviously, this is a policy decision that the Council must resolve. Other factors that we review when looking at fees is a) the cost of doing business; and b) the "competition." As an aside, the most equitable fee program is the hourly rate structure, which charges the project the actual rate of the person providing the service. Even though I have worked in cities with this type of program, it is quite time consuming to administer and I would not recommend pursuing this option unless it is done on a city-wide basis. My recommendation would be to review the time it takes to carry out the typical project and compare that cost to the market. My fee proposal will no doubt show increases in the fees, but we will strive to keep them within the range of what other cities in the area are charging for the same services. A table showing those fees in comparison to Lodi will be shown at the shirtsleeve meeting. Attached is the current fee schedule for information purposes. KB/lw Attachment Cm9902.doc FEE SCHEDULE CITY OF LODI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY FEE ANNEXA TION 5 2,000.00 DEVEL OPMENT PLAN REVIEW $ 1,650.00 GENERAL PLANAMENDMENT $ 500.00 REZONE $ 600.00 LOT UNEAD/USTMENT 5 175.00 PARCEL MAP 5 300.00 TEN TA TI VESUBDIVISION MAP 5 500.00 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT $ 50.00 NEGA TI VE DECLARA TION 5 650.00 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT $ 2,200.00 LANDSCAPE REVIEW $ 175.00 MI TICA TION MONI TORING 5 - SPARC 5 875.00 USE PERMIT 5 500.00 VARIANCE 5 350.00 ADMINISTRA TI VE DEVIA TION 5 100.00 HOME OCCUPA TION 5 25.00 ZONING PLAN CHECK 5 15.00 CODE COMPLAINT RECEIVED 5 - FIRST FIELD INSPECTION 5 - ADMINI5TRA T1 VE PROCE55INC 5 - COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 5 - 2ND COMPL 1A NCE INSPECTION 5 100.00 3RD COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 5 300.00 October 31, 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTmENT 221 W. PINE ST. LODI, CA (209) 333-6711 o � O ILnl/1 O tn O O O O O O In N 6i4�4tn Qs � �} �f C.> cz 00 •--� �--� N M 00 7p t C N M CN CN N 00 O kn tn N fn E!4 kn 1.14 C4 5f} } Sf} 5g d4 f} £!4 &} CD 0 N O M � p OM tr) W) 00 cV N M V) M v1 6S} 64? 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 G O O T o '- N 64 6�4 N oo M O COS -�Om -6s 4-4 611� o c., G O O N C O _ m O O � �� O 64 C 64 64 64 e.4 6a O 64 64 6R c =� c LL" CJ] O> O Ln 00 O GI C oc - M p N O tY1 N M N -+ M M 64 64 -:O? 64 64 v4 64 64 ba 6? y4 64 64 + Ln N ti V v'1 Q O� c� p � CON 0000 N OC GM1 CA M z M to N "Z kn -- N N 64 64 64 5a ips 64 6Ri 6:c), E!4 's4 64 04 06s E/4 64 �J + i Li C + Q O O Q oLn ^ `:`^ O Lr) o 1 ct v I-- M -- 6s 6F f 64 69 6�4 64 64 b4 64 64 ER o4 b4 64 6f? O r C ... di .O G> r= E U U O .L .� 'O cu :� (D G G a� O U p :. ^� J y v � 'n `� n cs ¢Q¢ C7¢= z >Q U 0 z 0 57 z i C U 1 n u_s U cn U4 EE Sample Charges for Encroachments Agency Type Block Party Parade Sign Misc. Concrete Work Utility Work Sidewalk Sales Driveway/Sidewalk No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee Lodi Existing Proposed $25 $25 $25 $50 $25 + *41% of construction costs No Fee Downtown Stockton $185 $185 $310 $128 $128 + 35 cents/foot for trenching No cost if items are within 30" of building Tracy $30 $30 $110 + $401hr $35 + $40/hr for insp. $35 + $40/hr for engineering review Not Allowed engr & insp. and inspection Modesto $20 $20 Not Allowed $38.50 $68 + 72 cents/foot for trenching Allowed in Downtown Only No cost Galt Fee to be Fee to be Fee to be Fee to be proposed Fee to be proposed Fee to be proposed proposed proposed proposed Antioch No Fee No Fee Not Allowed $10-$25 ` $10-$25 ` Not Allowed 5% of value if over $500 5% of value if over $500 Turlock No Fee 1 Block -$0 $50/hr for plan $50/hr for plan check $50/hr + $0.50 or $1.75/sf if there is No Permit Required >1 Block -$76 check & insp. and inspection trenching" Davis $32 or $64 $32 or $64 $64 $25 for 20 feet and $25 No trenching - $38 to $76 $64 Nonprofit/other Nonprofittother for each additional 20 feet Trenching - $76 to $127 City of Sacramento $10 Charge for $190 or $380"` $175 to $400 Actual cost $190 Meter Losses varies with length Sacramento County $20 $20 $50 $50 Pac Bell $210 Not Allowed Others $75 + actual costs San Joaquin County Not Allowed $40 $40 $50 + 50 cents/foot $50 + 5 to 35 cents per foot for $40 trenching ` varies with value of work between $0 - $500 " $0.50/sf - dirt ; $1.75/sf for pavement "' $190 - No Council Action / $380 Council Action Engineering Fees Improvement Plan Checking First Submittal (non-refundable) Final App Inspection Inspection on Overtime Parcel Map Check/Processing Final Map Processing (Miscellaneous Encroachment Permit Proposed Fee Revisions $840 per sheet No Change No Change 9.30 per hour plus $10 p6r lot Existina Fee $750 per sheet or submit est. and fee per schedule 4.5 % of first $50,000 2.5% of next $200,000 1.5% of amount over $250,000 2.5% on engineered projects $35.10 per hour $250 plus $10 per lot Sidewalk/Driveway (single parcel) $50 No Fee Non -construction $25 No Fee Downtown Sidewalk Encr. No Fee No Fee Utility and other non-public construction $25 min + 2.5% of constr. cost No Fee for engineering and 2.5% for inspection Transportation Other Single Trip No Change $15 Multiple Trips $90 $20 Address Change $50 No Fee Street Abandonment $750 + traffic studies $25 Easement Abandonment $250 $25 Street Name Change $250 No Fee Lot Line Adjustment 1 $225 No Fee