Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 3, 1993 PH (13)� os CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Set Public Hearing for April 7, 1993 to Consider Implementation of Planning Fee Schedule MEETING DATE: March 3, 1993 PREPARED BY: Assistant City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: (See attached) FUNDING: None required. Respectfully submitted, • �i��.�eid N1� erry L. Glenn Assistant City Manager APPROVED- Ow� THOMAS A. PETERSON .cyc»o Pape, City Manager J CMCO!:TS/TXTA. QJV CC -1 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Frani Assistant City Manager Subj: Cost Recovery Program Date: March 3, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt as general policy its intent to recover the costs of service from individuals and/or groups served to the extent that individual members of the public are benefiting from specific City facilities or personnel in r way different from that en;oyed by all citizens. The first step in this process would be to schedule a public hearing on the topic. The suggested date is April 7, 1993. BACKGRUM: The underlying assumption in this recomnnendation is that for services benefiting an individual that individual should pay for the cost of the service. The intent of this proposal is not to make a profit but to recapture all of the costs or a reasonable percentage of the total cost of providing special services. This approach is certainly fair and equitable in that the person that has the greatest benefit is the person that pays and does not look to their cross-town neighbor to pay the cost. It does not seem equitable for the tax dollars of Mrs. Dobler, an aged widow living on Social Secu<ity in a one bedr.3orm rental, be used to pay for a lot line adjustment so a person can expand their residential lot to add additional footage, or to pay the costs of extracting a drunk driver from his damaged automobile, or the costs abating abandoned vehicles. All of these costs should be borne by the direct beneficiary of the Larvice. There are circumstances in which it is reasonable policy to set fees at more or less than the cost of providing the service. There are a number of factors which must be considered in setting fees. 1. SUBSIDY AND BENEFIT: The decision to subsidize a service from general tax revenues begins with real and/or perceived benefits. Subsidies arise when the price charged to service users is less than the cost of providing the service. The approach to cost recovery and subsidy levels begins with assessing private versus public benefit. The graph below display this approach to setting fees. when the benefit is community -wide, shown on the bottom axis at the left edge, then the corresponding share of support (tax dol?_ars), shown on the left axis, is high. As services benefit individuals more directly, the portion of costs covered by fees increases. Cost Recovery 100% 00% eos To• COMMUNITY eos (taxes) God 40\ s0• INDIVIDUAL 20% (1008) ies �— os COYYUNIT• OeNe PIT PCORONA, aem9fir For example: Police Patrol services performed by patrol officers benefit the community as a whole through crime deterrence. Accordingly, costs of service are 100% supported by taxes. By the same token a lot line adjustment or an annexation is a direct benefit to a specific property owner and the general public should not be required to subsidize the processing of that activity in any way. Accordingly, the entire costs is paid by the requestor of the service. PUBLIC SAFETY, PATROL Cost Recovery .o•L COMMUNITY jj (taxes) >o< INDIVIDUAL MM tt...) 10% COWWWWr "Man? P96601ft can wr ' Comff"Oly wade. W0,4 tax Wi0offled Youth programs benefit participating young people and' their families directly. Most communities feel that offering children a safe educational outlet for their energies also benefits the community as a whole and accordingly the youth sports are supported partially by participant fees and partially by general tax revenue. SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS Cost Recovery so• aoa ro• eo• COMMUNITY to• (taxes) .o• 70% INDIVIDUAL io• (tees) �o• o• corrVr�tr �twnr n�eoeK prNnf Beneflt to bubdor. homeownwe 2.ECONOMIC INCENiTIVES: Ir_ some cases it may be desirable to use fees as a means of encouraging or discouraging certain activities. For instance an inverse rate structure for water rates may be used to encourage conservation or fees for senior citizen and recreation services tray be subsidized heavily to encourage participation. 3.ELASTICITY OF DEMAND: The price charged for a service can affect the quantity demanded by potential users. In some instances raising the price of a service results in fewer units of the service being purchased. Whether total revenue goes up, down, or stays the same results from the magnitude of the fee increase and potential volume decrease or vice versa. An example may be the price cha_ged for parking permits. If tho cost for a permit is doubled the number of people buying the permit may go down to the extent that fewer total dollars are received. 4.COMPETITIVS RESTRAINTS: Although a city may have a monopoly on providing certain services within its boundaries, citizens and industries may choose to relocate to other communities with lower fees. There may also be alternatives within the private sector i.e. recreation facilities, campgrounds, etc. Once the,true cost of services is known then council can consider economic as well as political factors when deciding how high to set its user fees. The City has contracted with David M. Griffith to conduct a study to assist city staff in determining the cost of providing services. In their study they used what could be considered a building block approach to the costs. They determined not only the amount of time and resources to actually perform the units of work, but also the direct department overhead and the citywide overhead to accomplish the tasks. In some cases this may be appropriate and in some cases it may not be appropriate or for practical situations it may be discounted. At any rate they prepared.for the City their determinations of what these costs are. It should be strongly emphasized that they dealt only with figures that staff gave to them. Council is requested to adopt a Master Coat Recovery Resolution that lists all fees for services. The intent is to place all flies in the same place for ease of research and understanding. This resolution should have a provision that will raise these fees on an annual basis. Every five years the basis of the fees and any changes in methodology of providing services or increaser or reductions of overhead should be reviewed. It is staffs hope that the initial discussion will center on the philosophy and practicality of adopting a set of fees that will cover costs of providing service. Again this approach is certainly fair and equitable in that the person that has the greatest benefit is the person that pays. COM14UNITY DEVELOPMENT It is fully understood that it is not practical to expect such a dramatic step forward to be accepted in the blind; therefore I am including in this memorandum recommendations to establish Community Development Fees and an explanation of the rationale for staffs recommendation. This report has been reviewed by the Community Development Director and forwarded to the Planning Commission per Council's direction. The Planning Commission's recommendations are attached. The Community Development Department is charged with three distinct functions which provide servi,:e to the citizens of the City of Lodi; planning, building inspection and code enforcement. In the area of planning there are activities which are beneficial to the community at large and should therefore be paid for by the community at large. These activities center around the area of long range and current planning and zoning issues. Advance planning is primarily responsible for long-range planning which provides the City the opportunity to control its future.character. Long range planning activities are community based and impact all local. residents. Preparing and maintaining the City's general plan serves to protect and enhance the comity; therefore, it is appropriate that the cost of these services not come from fees, but from general tax revenues. Likewise activities promoting economic development benefits all local residents and should be general fund supported. Current planning has the primary responsibility of reviewing development projects to ensure conformity with all City plans and ordinances. It is here that specific benefactors of city services can be identified and appropriate fees established. Listed below are activities which have been identified as having an identifiable person(s) placing the demand for services on the Citys' Staff. Also included is the number of such requests the City had in 1990-91 fiscal year, the present fee, the full cost of providing the service and staffs recocmended fee. Activity Number Present Full Staff Fee Cost Recommend Annexation 6 $100 $1,984 $2,000 Dev. Plan Review 10 0 $1,634 $1,650 General Plan Amend 6 $100 $1,090 $ 50o Rezone 11 $100 $ 608 $ 600 Lot Line Adjust. 22 0 $ 171 $ 175 Parcel Map 23 0 $ 290 $ 300 Tentative Map 13 $100 $ 536 $ 500 Prelim.Bnv. Asses. 75 $ 0 $ 46 $ 50 Negative Dec. 20 $ 50 $ 611 $ 600 8IR 3 0 $2,242 $2,200 Mitigation Monitor 15 0 $ 581 $ 0 SPARC 19 0 $ 875 $ 875 Landscape Review 20 0 $ 188 $ 175 Use Permit 15 $50 $ 503 $ 500 Variance 20 $25 $ 347 $ 350 Home Oc:.upation 294 $ 0 $ 23 $ 25 Zoning Plan Check. 700 0 $ 17 $ 15 The services associated with these recommended fees are generally for the benefit of an individual or are associated with changes to the status of individual parcels of land. We are only recommending recovering one-half the cost of General Plan amendments as the City has a responsibility for maintaining and updating the General Plan. However, the proposed fee covers the cost of reviewing changes requested by individuals. It should also be noted that we are proposing no fee for monitoring mitigation factors associated with land development. Mitigation measures are items that are for the benefit of the entire community even though caused by the actions of an individual. It is in the best interests of the entire community to see that these actions are carried out. Further, so that no one could claim that unnecessary mitigations actions were required for the purpose of raising revenue we are not recommending additional fees. BUILDING INSPECTION The Building Inspection Division is responsible for plan checking and inspection services for new and existing remodeled construction. It has not been the City's intent to subsidize building regulation activities nor to raise fees to discourage growth and development. It has been the practice to charge the fees recommended in the Uniform Building Code. That practice has served the City well in the past and we therefore are making no recommendations to change that practice. CODE ENFORCEMENT The Community Development Department is charged with enforcing and abating certain housing code violations, abatement of abandoned vehicles, and enforcement of the zoning ordinances. Presently no fees are charged for these specialized services; however, a strong point can be made that the general community should not subsidize property owners or renters who do not comply with minimum community standards; i.e. the housing code. The approach to fees should be that the fees established assure compliance with these regulations. A carrct/stick approach might best achieve these objectives: This can be accomplished by setting no fee for the initial contact, investigation and notification of violation. However, if compliance is not achieved then the fee or assessment should be punitive in nature. The following chart will illustrate this concept: Activity Cost Recommended Fee Complaint Received $12 $ O lst Field Inspection $48 $ 0 Admin.Processing $19 $ 0 Compliance Inspection $50 $ 0 2nd Compliance Inspection $50 $ SO 3rd Compliance Inspection $50 $200 Close File $24 $ 0 By the same token the same approach should be taken with abatement of vehicles. However at the 2nd compliance inspection the City will order the vehicle towed. ACtivity Cost Recommended Fee Complaint Received $24 $ 0 Field Inspection $17 $ 0 Compliance Inspection $35 $ 0 Request Tow $24 $100 Close File $12 $ 0 By adopting these fees the City Council will take steps to relieve the General Fund from subsidizing activities which are generated by and for the benefit of specific individuals or groups. Based on the numbers of requests for services processed in 1990-91 these fees will generate approximately $125,000 a year in additional revenue. rry L. G1 enn Assistant City Manager O• CITY &17" LIOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: April 7. 1993 CARNEGIE FORUM 305 West Pine Street. Lodi Time: 7:30 p.m. For information regarding this Public Hearing Please Contact: Jennifer M. Perrin City Clerk Telephone: 333.6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING April 7, 1993 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the following matter: a) Implementation of a planning fee schedule All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described In this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order Of the Lodi City Council: tits a �+��� 1 l?��,� Perrin City Clerk Dated: March 3, 1593 Approved as to form: , Bobby W. McNatt City Attorney