HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 21, 1999 H-01COUNCILCITY OF LODI 1
<iFop�c�
LL
AGENDA TITLE: Approve fee adjustments for Police, Public Works, Parks and Recreation,
and Community Development Departments
MEETING DATE: April 21, 1999
PREPARED BY: Deputy City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99-68 approving
adjustments to fees as presented in Exhibits A -D for the Police, Public Works, Parks and
Recreation and Community Development Departments.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: City staff presented the City Council with fee adjustment
proposals during the February 2, 1999 Shirtsleeve Session. During that Session, Council was
briefed on current fees, fees charged by other communities, and the proposed new City fees.
Implicit in the fee proposals is the assumption that services fall within one of two categories:
Community -wide services and discretionary services.
• Community -wide services are those functions that support the general public. The services
are provided to the community as a whole and there is a general expectation that the majority
of citizens benefit from these services. These services are typically funded by taxes.
• Discretionary services are those functions that are optional and are paid in whole or in part
through fees.
Since the passage of Proposition 13 (beginning in 1978), local governments have had to rely less
on property taxes to provide both the community -wide services and the discretionary services. As
an example of the effects from Proposition 13, the 1979/80 percentage of General Fund revenue
from property taxes was 19%. In 1997/98, the percentage had decreased to 8%.
The decrease in property taxes has resulted in communities either scaling back programs and
services, or in finding alternative revenue sources. One such source is the user fee. The user
fee is an efficient means of funding the discretionary services by distributing the cost among the
users. Once the fees have been established, they need to be periodically reviewed to ensure that
they accurately reflect the cost of providing the service.
City staff is requesting Council to review the attached Exhibits that delineate the proposed fee
adjustments for discretionary services.
APPROVED: K.'1311 -on Flynn -- City Manager
CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
FUNDING: None
Respectfully submitted,
Janet . Keeter
Deputy City Manager
Attachments
APPROVED'
H. D' on Flynn -- City Manager
Proposed Lodi Police Department Fee Structure Summary
The current fee structure of the Lodi Police Department has remained static for
several years. We have provided a fee comparison matrix to illustrate how many of our
current fees and proposed new fees compare to a sampling of other law enforcement
agencies. It should be noted that several of the agencies contacted stated that they were
in the process of reviewing their current fee charges for increase adjustments. We are not
recommending fee adjustments for all fees. This is due to the relatively low volume of
workload generated and small number of applications received for those activities, to
include; taxi driver/owner, card room dealer/owner, secondhand dealer, and non-profit /
business solicitor.
The cost recovery summary for proposed fee increases illustrates current fees and
proposed new fees. The increases listed are necessary to recover a portion of the actual
costs for providing the following services:
Fee Increases
1) Impound Vehicle Release: Relates to the new 30 day impound law which has
resulted in more time being spent by records and supervisory staff to administer.
2) Concealed Weapons Applicants / Range: The staff time necessary to complete
the application process, background checks, and range qualifications.
3) Massage Proprietor/Technician: Due to on-going issues surrounding this type of
business activity, police detectives are assigned to complete background and
applicant reviews of proprietors and technicians.
New Fees
1) Mechanical Citation Sign -off: Officers are required to leave their duties to sign -
off mechanical citations. Only those citations generated by other agencies would
be charged a fee.
2) VIN Verifications: Officers are required to leave their duties to verify vehicle
identifier numbers. A verification is often needed for a non -registered vehicle,
which is being sold by a business or private party.
3) DUI Cost Recovery: By city resolution, the vehicle code allows agencies to
recover costs associated with arresting intoxicated drivers. Arrest of DUI's
account for considerable documentation and staff time.
4) Grape Festival: The graduated fee structure for police services for the Grape and
Wine Festival represents only a partial cost of police services. The festival
manager has been consulted and is in concurrence with the recommended fees.
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISONS
Proposed New Fees
Fee
Lodi - Proposed
Stockton
Manteca
Tracy
Sacramento
Roseville
Galt
VIN Verification
$35.00
$46.00
$10.00
$15.00
$7.50
DUI Cost Recovery:
No
Formula
Formula
Formula
No
Arrest No Collision
$125.00
$162.00
"
Collision No Injury
$200.00
$276.00
"
Collision With Injury
$300.00
$408.00
"
Collision Fatal
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
"
Fire Dept. Response
$150.00
$180.00
"
Other Agency
Mechanical
Sign -Off
$10.00
$22.50
$10.00
$7.50
Grape Festival*
$5,000.00
Formula
No
Formula
Formula
Formula
*Formula/DUI Cost Recovery: Tracy, Sacramento & Roseville all charge for DUI cost recovery. Each agency has a specific formula for caculating
costs for each individual incident. We have concluded that the formula system is too labor intensive for staff to adopt.
*Grape Festival Cost Recovery: Festival 1999 - $5,000.00; Festival 2000 - $10,000.00; Festival 2001 - $15,000.00 Other City formulas per officer
for 1 hour: Stockton - $70.00; Sacramento - $40.28; Roseville - $50.00; Galt - $19.50
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISONS
Current Fee Costs/Proposed Increases
Fee
Lodi
Current/Proposed
Stockton
Manteca
Tracy
Sacramento
Roseville
Gait
Impound Vehicle
Release
$45.00/$75.00
$85.00
$50.00
$35.00
$67.00
$15.00
$20.00
CCW Applicant 2yrs)
$15.00/$25.00
$3.00
$20.00
$3.00
$3.00
$38.00
$100.0C
*State Charges
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
$90.0C
Total:
$105.00/$115.00
$93.00
$110.00
$93.00
$93.00
$128.00
$190.00
CCW Renewal 2yrs)
$ 3.00/$15.00
$3.00
$20.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$50.0C
*State Charges
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
Total:
$45.00/$57.00
$45.00
$62.00
$45.00
$45.00
$45.00
$92.00
Range Fees
$13.00/$25.00
4o Qualification
No Qualification
No
Qualification
No
Qualification INo Qualification
No
Qualification
Massage Proprietor
$31.50
$162.20
$400.00 $35.00 $75.00 (2yr)
Invest. Fee
$250.00
')149.20 Renew
$25.00 Renew
$20.00 Renew
*State Charges
$32.00
$66.00
$32.00
$32.00
$32.00
Total:
$63.50/$313.50
$228.20
$432.00
$67.00
$4,027.50
$107.00
Massage Technician
$6.00
$120.20
$40.00
$35.00
$327.50
$75.00 (2yr)
Invest. Fee
$150.00
X107.20 Renew
$25.00 Renew
$20.00 Renew
*State Charges
$32.00
$66.00
$32.00
$32.00
$32.00
$32.00
Total:
$38.00/5188.00
$186.20
$72.00
$67.00
$359.50
$107.00
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 90.00 90.00
CCW Renewal -Every 2 years
City of Lodi Fee $3.00 $15.00
State Mandated Fee 42.00 42.00
Range Fees $13.00 $25.00
Massage Proprietor $63.50 $313.00
(Additional Investigative Fee of $250)
Massage Technician $38.00 $188.00
(Additional Investigative Fee of $150)
Cost Recovery Summary
Proposed New Fees
Current
Proposed
Outside Agency Mechanical Sign -off
0
$10.00
VIN Verification
0
$35.00
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
Grape Festival - 1999
0
$5,000.00
2000
0
$10,000.00
2001
0
$15,000.00
Impound Vehicle Release Fee
Current Fee: The City of Lodi currently collects $45.00 for a
impounded vehicle release fee whenever a vehicle is towed and
stored pursuant to specific sections of the California Vehicle Code.
Proposed Chanae: Increase the fee to $75.00
Justification: The existing fee of $45.00 is below the actual cost to
provide the service. With the new 30 day impound law, considerable
more time is spent by records personnel and supervisors dealing with
these cases. Tow hearings for example, have increased dramatically.
CCW Applicant
Current Fee: State of California: $90.00
City of Lodi $15.00
Total $105.00
Proposed Chance: Increase the City of Lodi portion from $15.00 to
$25.00 which would make the total cost of a CCW application to
$115.00.
Justification: A fee of $15.00 to interview potential applicants,
process the paper work, and conduct a background check is far below
the actual cost to provide the service. Records personnel spend well
over thirty minutes on each applicant to process the necessary paper
work and conduct a background check. This increase makes the fee
more in line with the actual cost to provide this service.
CCW Renewal
Current Fee: State of California: $42.00
City of Lodi $3.00
Total $45.00
Proposed Chance: Increase City of Lodi portion from $3.00 to
$15.00 which would bring the total for renewal to $57.00.
Justification: The current fee of $3.00 does not come close to the
actual cost to provide this service. Considerable time is spent by
records personnel processing the paper work. The increase better
reflects the actual cost to provide this service.
Range Fees
Current Fee: The City of Lodi currently collects $13.00 as a range fee
for CCW permit holders to qualify each year.
Proposed Change: $25.00
Justification: The current fee of $13.00 is hardly sufficient to cover
the costs for a police officer/range master to qualify CCW permit
holders. Much of the time, qualifications are done on overtime. An
increase to $25.00 is still below the actual cost to provide the service,
but allows the City to cover a portion of its costs.
Massage Proprietor
Current Fee: State of California: $32.00
City of Lodi $31.50
Total $63.50
Proposed Chance: State of California: $32.00
City of Lodi $31.50
Add: (Investigative Fee) $250.00
Total $313.00
Justification: The current fee of $31.50 does not cover the costs to
provide the actual service. Considerable time is spent by records
personnel processing the appropriate paper work. Additionally, a
background investigation is conducted on each applicant by a
detective which requires numerous hours of investigation and/or travel
and phone calls. The increase better reflects the actual cost to
provide this service. County of Sacramento, for example, charges a
fee of $4,000.00, while the City of Stockton charges approximately
$150.00 for massage proprietor.
Massage Technician
Current Fee: State of California: $32.00
City of Lodi $6.00
Total $38.00
Proposed Change: State of California: $32.00
City of Lodi $6.00
Add: (Investigative Fee) $150.00
Total $188.00
Justification: The current fee of $6.00 does not cover the costs to
conduct a background check on each applicant technician. Currently
each application is sent to the investigations division for background
investigation. The increase is more representative of the actual cost
to provide the service.
VIN Verification
Current Fee: None.
Proposed Change: Initiate a fee of $35.00 for each VIN number
verification.
Justification: Currently police officers are required to drop other
duties and either come to the station or respond to locations in the
field to make VIN verifications. These tasks are on the increase and
take officers away from more important tasks or duties. City of
Stockton, for example, charges $46.00 for VIN verifications.
Outside Agency Mechanical Citation Sign Offs
Current Fee: None.
Proposed Chanae: Initiate a fee of $10.00 for citation sign offs
written by agencies other than the Lodi Police Department.
Justification: Officers and/or community service officers are required
to discontinue regular duties or come to the police facility to sign off
mechanical citations. A fee of $10.00 covers the actual time and cost
to provide the service.
We will continue to provide this service free of charge for citations
Lodi Police Department has written. However, we propose that we
should charge for staff time needed to sign off citations generated by
other agencies.
DUI Cost Recovery
Current Fee: None.
Proposed Change: This would require a city resolution. This is a
foram of cost recovery designed to allow the City of Lodi to recover
costs as it relates to an emergency vehicle response in DUI cases.
This cost recovery would become operative whenever red lights and
siren are used to apprehend an intoxicated driver.
For example, the following fees are representative of what it costs the
City of Lodi to provide this service.
DUI Arrest no collision
$125.00
DUI Collision no injury
$200.00
DUI Collision Injury
$300.00
DUI Collision Fatal
$1,000.00
Fire Department Response
$150.00
Fees can be accumulative, but cannot exceed $1,000.00.
Grape Festival
Current Fee: None.
Proposed Change: This is a new fee.
Festival year 1999
$5,000.00
Festival year 2000
$10,00.00
Festival year 2001
$15,000.00
Fees are to increase each year.
Justification: This is a service provided each year by supervisors,
police officers and reserve officers for security and to reduce crime
during the Grape Festival period. All officers assigned this duty are
working overtime. A charge for the service provided allows the City to
cover a portion of its costs. The Chief of Police has had discussions
with the Grape Festival Manager concerning these fee proposals. The
Grape Festival Manager is in concurrence with the recommended fees
and remains very satisfied with LPD's services.
PROPOSED PUBLIC WORKS FEES
It has been a number of years since the Fee Schedule for the Public Works Department
has been updated. Consequently, a number of fees need to be increased and others
added. Attached is a table outlining the fee increases and additions.
Fee increases are proposed for Improvement Plan Checking (First Submittal, Inspection
on Overtime, Parcel Map Check/Processing, and Final Map Processing), Transportation
Permits (Multiple and Single Trips), and Other (Street Abandonment and Easement
Abandonment).
The Improvement Plan Checking fees are being increased to correspond to an annual
3% increase over the last four years. The Transportation Permit fee will be tied to the
Caltrans fee. This will result in increasing the Single Trip fee from $15 to $16 and
increasing the Multiple Trip fee from $20 to $90. In the future, this fee will be
automatically adjusted when Caltrans adjusts its fee. The Street Abandonment and
Easement Abandonment fees have been increased to correspond to the 30 hours and
10 hours, respectively, of staff time at $25/hour needed to process requests.
New fees are being proposed for encroachment permits. The fee to process an
encroachment request will be $25 and is based on an average of one hour of an
engineering technician's time to process a request. In addition to the processing fee,
fees will be charged for encroachment requests that require engineering review,
inspection, document preparation (e.g., hold harmless agreement) and other agency
fees (e.g., County recordation fee). In these cases, fees to cover staff time and charges
from other agencies will be as follows:
Engineering Review 2.5% of construction costs for items requiring review
Inspection 2.5% of construction costs for items that require inspection
Document Preparation $50
Other Agency Fees Reimbursement for fees paid by City
No fees will be charged for City -sponsored events and the Public Works Director has the
authority to modify a fee for unusual circumstances.
ENCPRMTFEESI.DOC
gineering Fees
Improvement Plan Checking
First Submittal (non-refundable)
Final Approval
Inspection
Inspection on Overtime
Parcel Map Check/Processing
Final Map Processing
Miscellaneous
Encroachment Permit
Sidewalk/Driveway (single parcel)
Non -construction
Downtown Sidewalk Encr.
Utility and other non-public construction
Document Preparation
Transportation Permits
Proposed Fee Revisions*
per sheet
No Change
No Change
X9.30 per hour
plus $10 per lot
$50
$25
No Fee
$25 + 2.5% of constr. cost
for engineering and 2.5% for inspection
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
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
Single Trip
Per Caltrans Fee. Currently $16$15
Multiple Trips
Per Caltrans Fee. Currently $90
1 $20
Other
Address Change $50 No Fee
Street Abandonment $750 + traffic studies $25
Easement Abandonment $250 $25
Street Name Change $250 No Fee
Lot Line Adjustment $225 No Fee
No Fee for City -sponsored events. Public Works Director has authority to modify fee for unusual conditions. In addition to Fee listed, City may
charge for reimbursement of charges from other agencies.
-Nopopq
I I ow 2 1I1�1�T �� .
Proposed Lodi Parks and Recreation Department
Fee Structure Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department continually strives to provide quality, low-cost
programs, activities, and services to the citizens of Lodi and the surrounding community.
Many of the fees have not been adjusted for five or more years. Attached is a matrix
illustrating current and proposed fees for programs and services that staff is
recommending for fee adjustments. Please note that not all Parks and Recreation
program and service fees are being proposed for adjustments.
Fee Increases
1. Youth Sports Program Fees: Fee adjustments in the areas of Flag Football (all age
groups) and Junior Basketball (4t' through 6t' grades only) to address referee needs.
2. Aquatic Programs: Fee adjustments for swim lessons, summer swim league, and
public swim at Blakely Park and Lodi Lake beach to address lifeguard and instructor
needs; facility improvements and maintenance. Please note that staff is
recommending a decrease to the adult public swim fee at Blakely Park to encourage
adults to use the facility.
3. Adult Sports Program Fees: Fee adjustments based on roster size (15 for softball, 10
for soccer, basketball, and volleyball) to address needs for officials and scorekeepers.
4. Facility Rentals: Fee adjustments to resident and non-residents to address repairs to
the facilities and staff time spent cleaning and maintaining the facilities for public
use. Staff is recommending no adjustments to local non-profit fees.
5. Lodi Lake Vehicle Entrance: This fee adjustment is recommended only for weekends
and holidays.
New Fees
1. Recreation Activity Block (RAB): This fee would apply to activities co-sponsored by
the department i.e., Boosters of Boys/Girls Sports programs and the Lodi City Swim
Club to address officials and facilities rented by the department for these programs.
A RAB covers a four-month block of time and applies to year-round activities.
2. Kiwanis Picnic Area at Lodi Lake: Setting rental fees that address staff
administrative time to secure the facility, posting of the rental notification, and
maintenance of the facility.
Lodi Parks and Recreation Department
Proposed Fee Increases
Program
Participants `-Current Fee 'Prpve41 Vie.""0
BOBS Youth Sports
4000
$0
$1
BOBS Competitive Soccer
300
$0
$2
Flag Football
333
$20
$25
Junior Basketball 4rd-5th Grade
424
$20
$25
Junior Basketball 6th Grade
170
$20
$28
Public Swim - Blakely Youth
6316
$0.75
$1
Public Swim - Blakely Adult
916
$1.25
$1
Public Swim - Lake Beach Youth
8500
$0.75
$1
Public Swim - Lake Beach Adult
5500
$1.25
$2
Swim Lessons
1000
$15
$20
Summer Swim League
500
$15
$20
Lodi City Swim League
130
$0
$3
Adult Softball
209
$210-$325
$225-$340
Adult Soccer
14
$195
$205
Adult Basketball
22
$60-$300
$70-$310
Adult Volleyball
28
$140
$150
$40
Legion Loewen's Den Non -Resident
3
$40
Facility
Uses,
Curreht;Fee. _Pro0o9ecl F#6
Youth Shelter Resident
10
$100
$110
Youth Shelter Non -Resident
6
$110
$120
Hughes Shelter Resident
16
$45
$55
Hughes Shelter Non -Resident
5
$55
$65
Hughes Whole Resident
13
$90
$100
Hughes Whole Non -Resident
4
$110
$120
Parsons Shelter Resident
21
$35
$45
Parsons Shelter Non -Resident
3
$45
$55
Rotary Shelter Resident
9
$40
$50
Rotary Shelter Non -Resident
1
$50
$60
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Non -Profit
4
n/a
$50
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Resident
25
n/a
$75
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Non -Resident
4
n/a
$85
Emerson Lions Den Resident
29
$30
$40
Emerson Lions Den Non -Resident
8
$40
$50
Legion Loewen's Den Resident
35
$30
$40
Legion Loewen's Den Non -Resident
3
$40
$50
Salas Picnic Area Resident
18
$35
$40
Salas Picnic Area Non -Resident
4
$45
$50
Kofu Building Resident
6
$40
$50
Lee Jones Building Resident
32
$40
$50
Lodi. Lake Vehicle - Weekend/Hol.
Vehicles
Curre` (f,;'�;P"ropos d,Fee
Resident
7132
$2
$3
Non -Resident
2213
$3
$4
4/13/99
Notes
$1 per Activity
$1 per RAB (2x)
$1 per RAB (3x)
$15 per team
$10 per team
$10 per team
$10 per team
PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES
Attached is a matrix denoting the various fees that are being recommended for
adjustments. Additionally, fees are shown that are proposed to remain unchanged. The
City Council should note that the majority of the fees are remaining at their current
levels.
The Planning Division charges fees for the services provided, however the majority of
these are application fees are for a specific activity. The fees are intended to cover the
cost of providing the service.
The question as to why the City charges a fee for services surfaced during the discussion
regarding what the typical Lodi citizen pays in taxes. Again, this is a fundamental policy
decision on the part of the City Council, however it is the standard in the field; that the
City should attempt to recover costs for development activities.
Each of the fees that are recommended for increase is still significantly under the average
of the six jurisdictions surveyed. Those surveyed agencies include Stockton, Tracy,
Manteca, Lathrop, Galt and San Joaquin County.
PC9901.doc
Recommended Fee Schedule Comparison
Activity
Survey
Average
Lodi
Recommended
Increase
Administrative
Deviations
$575
$100
$200
Annexation
$59008
$25000
$35000
General Plan
Amendment
$39221
$500
$1,000
Parcel Ma
$19991
$300
$750
Rezone
$25292
$600
$1,000
Tentative
Subdivision
Ma
$39413
$500
$1,000
Use Permit
$19828
$500
$1,000
Zoning Plan
Check
$80
$15
$50
Variance
$19014
$350
$500
Appeals
$265
$250
NO INCREASE RECOMMENED
Development Plan Review
$1,650
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
$50
Environmental Impact Report
$2,200
Home Occupation
$25
Lot Line Adjustment
$175
Negative Declaration
$650
Landscape Review
$175
Mitigation Monitoring
-0-
SPARC
$875
Code Complaint
NIC
First Field Inspection
N/C
Administrative Processing
N/C
Compliance Inspection
N/C
2 nd Compliance Inspection
$100
3` Com liance Inspection
$300
RAD/FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON.DOC
RESOLUTION NO. 99-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
FEE INCREASES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW FEES FOR
VARIOUS CITY SERVICES AND PROGRAMS CURRENTLY
OFFERED WITHIN THE CITY OF LODI
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. WHEREAS, the Lodi Municipal Code requires the City Council, by Resolution, to
set fees for various services provided by the City of Lodi to recover those costs associated with
providing specific services and programs; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends increasing and establishing fees for the following
Departments as shown on the attached schedules marked Exhibit A, B, C and D:
1. Public Works Department Engineering & Miscellaneous Fees (Exhibit A).
2. Community Development Fees (Exhibit B).
3. Parks & Recreation Fees (Exhibit C).
4. Police Department (Exhibit D).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lodi does
hereby implement the fee schedules as attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution;
and
SECTION 3. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed insofar as
such conflict may exist.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be published one time in the Lodi News Sentinel, a daily
newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Lodi, and shall be in force
and take effect immediately.
Dated: April 21, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 99-68 was passed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held April 21, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS -
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS -
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS -
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS -
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
ngineering Fees
Improvement Plan Checking
First Submittal (non-refundable
Final Approval
Inspection
Inspection on Overtime
Parcel Map Check/Pro(
Final Map Processing
Aiscellaneous
Encroachment Permit
Sidewalk/Driveway (single
Non -construction
Downtown Sidewalk Encr.
(Utility and other non-oublii
Document Preparation
Transportation Permits
1
Proposed Fee Revisions*
0 per sheet
No Change
J.3U per hour
plus $10 per lot
ME
NO i-ee
$25 + 2.5% of constr. cost
for engineering and 2.5% for insc
Existinq 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
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
Single Trip
Per Caltrans Fee. Currently $16
$15
Multiple Trips
I Per Caltrans Fee. Currently $90
1 $20
Other
Address Change $50 No Fee
Street Abandonment $750 + traffic studies $25
Easement Abandonment $250 $25
Street Name Change $250 No Fee
Lot Line Adjustment $225 No Fee
* No Fee for City -sponsored events. Public Works Director has authority to modify fee for unusual conditions. In addition to Fee listed, City may
charge for reimbursement of charges from other agencies. ,
M
it
I
EXH I BITE B
Recommended Fee Schedule Comparison
Activity
Survey
Average
Lodi
Recommended
Increase
Administrative
Deviations
$575
-
$100
$200
Annexation
$5,008
$2,000
$3,000
General Plan
Amendment
$39221
$500
$1,000
Parcel Ma
$1,991
$300
$750
Rezone
$21292
$6001
$1,000
Tentative
Subdivision
Ma
$3,413
$500
$19000
Use Permit
$1,828
$500
$1,000
Zoning Plan
Check
$80
$15
$50
Variance
$19014
$350
$500
Appeals
$265
$250
NO INCREASE RECOMMENED
Development Plan Review
$1,650
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
$50
Environmental Impact Report
$2,200
Home Occupation
$25
Lot Line Adjustment
$175
Negative Declaration
$650
Landscape Review
$175
Mitigation Monitoring
-0-
SPARC
$875
Code Complaint
N/C
First Field Inspection
N/C
Administrative Processing
N/C
Com liance Inspection
N/C
2 Id Compliance Inspection
$100
37Com liance Inspection
$300
RAD/FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON.DOC
EXHIBIT, C 4
Lodi Parks and Recreation Department
Proposed Fee Increases
Program
Participants
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
BOBS Youth Sports
4000
$0
$1
BOBS Competitive Soccer
300
$0
$2
Flag Football
333
$20
$25
Junior Basketball 4rd-5th Grade
424
$20
$25
Junior Basketball 6th Grade
170
$20
$28
Public Swim - Blakely Youth
6316
$0.75
$1
Public Swim - Blakely Adult
916
$1.25
$1
Public Swim - Lake Beach Youth
8500
$0.75
$1
Public Swim - Lake Beach Adult
5500
$1.25
$2
Swim Lessons
1000
$15
$20
Summer Swim League
500
$15
$20
Lodi City Swim League
130
$0
$3
Adult Softball
209
$210-$325
$225-$340
Adult Soccer
14
$195
$205
Adult Basketball
22
$60-$300
$70-$310
Adult Volleyball
28
$140
$150
Legion Loewen's Den Non -Resident
3
$40
$50
Facility
Uses
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
Youth Shelter Resident
10
$100
$110
Youth Shelter Non -Resident
6
$110
$120
Hughes Shelter Resident
16
$45
$55
Hughes Shelter Non -Resident
5
$55
$65
Hughes Whole Resident
13
$90
$100
Hughes Whole Non -Resident
4
$110
$120
Parsons Shelter Resident
21
$35
$45
Parsons Shelter Non -Resident
3
$45
$55
Rotary Shelter Resident
9
$40
$50
Rotary Shelter Non -Resident
1
$50
$60
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Non -Profit
4
n/a
$50
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Resident
25
n/a
$75
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Non -Resident
4
n/a
$85
Emerson Lions Den Resident
29
$30
$40
Emerson Lions Den Non -Resident
8
$40
$50
Legion Loewen's Den Resident
35
$30
$40
Legion Loewen's Den Non -Resident
3
$40
$50
Salas Picnic Area Resident
18
$35
$40
Salas Picnic Area Non -Resident
4
$45
$50
Kofu Building Resident
6
$40
$50
Lee Jones Building Resident
32
$40
$50
Lodi Lake Vehicle - Weekend/Hol.
Vehicles
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
Resident
7132
$2
$3
Non -Resident
2213
$3
$4
4/13/99
Notes
$1 per Activity
$1 per RAB (2x)
$1 per RAB (3x)
$15 per team
$10 per team
$10 per team
$10 per team
EXHIBIT,j D
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 90.00 90.00
CCW Renewal -Every 2 years
City of Lodi Fee $3.00 $15.00
State Mandated Fee 42.00 42.00
Range Fees $13.00 $25.00
Massage Proprietor $63.50 $313.00
(Additional Investigative Fee of $250)
Massage Technician $38.00 $188.00
(Additional Investigative Fee of $150)
EXHIBIT D 1
Cost Recovery Summary
Proposed New Fees
Current
Proposed
Outside Agency Mechanical Sign -off
0-.
$10.00
VIN Verification
0
$35.00
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
Grape Festival - 1999
0
$5,000.00
2000
0
$10,000.00
2001
0
$15,000.00
RESOLUTION NO. 99-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
FEE INCREASES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW FEES FOR
VARIOUS CITY SERVICES AND PROGRAMS CURRENTLY
OFFERED WITHIN THE CITY OF LODI
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. WHEREAS, the Lodi Municipal Code requires the City Council, by Resolution, to
set fees for various services provided by the City of Lodi to recover those costs associated with
providing specific services and programs; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends increasing and establishing fees for the following
Departments as shown on the attached schedules marked Exhibit A, B, C and D:
1. Public Works Department Engineering & Miscellaneous Fees (Exhibit A).
2. Community Development Fees (Exhibit B).
3. Parks & Recreation Fees (Exhibit C).
4. Police Department Fees (Exhibit D).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lodi does
hereby implement the fee schedules as attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed insofar as
such conflict may exist.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be published one time in the Lodi News Sentinel, a daily
newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Lodi, and shall be in force
and take effect July 1, 1999.
Dated: April 21, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 99-68 was passed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held April 21, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Nakanishi, Pennino and Land
(Mayor)
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Mann
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
&�) �- &Y�
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
ring Fees
Improvement Plan Checking
First Submittal (non-refundable)
Final Approval
Inspection
Inspection on Overtime
Parcel Map Check/Process
Final Map Processing
laneous
Encroachment Permit
Proposed Fee Revisions*
90% of estimated Final Approval Fee
No Change
No Change
9.30 per hour
plus $10 per lot
Sidewalk/Driveway (single parcel) $50
Non -construction $25
Downtown Sidewalk Encr. No Fee
Utility and other non-public construction $25 + 2.5% of constr. cost
for engineering and 2.5% for inspecl
Document Preparation $50
Transportation Permits
Single Trip Per Caltrans Fee. Currently $16
(Multiple Trios Per Caltrans Fee_ Currently $90
Existing 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
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$15
Other
Address Change $50 No Fee
Street Abandonment $750 + traffic studies $25
Easement Abandonment $250 $25
Street Name Change $250 No Fee
Lot Line Adjustment $225 No Fee
No Fee for City -sponsored events. Public Works Director has authority to modify fee for unusual conditions. In addition to Fee listed, City may
charge for reimbursement of charges from other agencies.
WP:1Dev_Serv\Eng. Fee Revision Summary 4/21199
EXHIBIT. $
Recommended Fee Schedule Comparison
Activity
Survey
Average
Lodi
Recommended
Increase
Administrative
Deviations
$375
$100I
$200
Annexation
$5,008
1$2,000
1 $3,000
General Plan
Amendment
$3,221
$500
$1,000
Parcel Ma
$1,9911
$300
$750
Rezone
$2,292
$600
$1,000
Tentative
Subdivision
Ma
$3,413
$500
$1,000
Use Permit
1 $1,8281
$5001
$1,000
Zoning PlanI
Check
$80
I $151
$50
Variance
$1,0141
$3501
$500
Appeals
$2651
1 $250
NO L- CREASE RECOMMENED
Development Plan Review
51,650
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
550
Environmental Impact Report
S2?00
Home Occupation
S25
Lot Line Adjustment
S175
Negative Declaration
S650
Landscape Review
S175
Mitigation Monitoring
-0-
SPARC
S875
Code Complaint
N/C
First Field Inspection
N/C
Administrative Processing (
iv/C
Compliance Inspection
N/C
2'd Com liance Inspection
S l00
3` Compliance Inspection
5300771
?AD/ z -E SCHEDULE COMPARISON DOC
Lodi Parks and Recreation Department EXHIBIT C
Fee Adjustments
Program
Participants
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
Public Swim - Blakely Youth
6316
$0.75
$1
Public Swim - Blakely Adult
916
$1.25
$1
Public Swim - Lake Beach Youth
8500
$0.75
$1
Public Swim - Lake Beach Adult
5500
$1.25
$2
Adult Softball
209
$210-$325
$225-$340
Adult Soccer
14
$195
$205
Adult Basketball
22
$60-$300
$70-$310
Adult Volleyball
28
$140
$150
Rotary Shelter Resident
9
$40
$50
Facility
Uses
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
Youth Shelter Resident
10
$100
$110
Youth Shelter Non -Resident
6
$110
$120
Hughes Shelter Resident
16
$45
$55
Hughes Shelter Non -Resident
5
$55
$65
Hughes Whole Resident
13
$90
$100
Hughes Whole Non -Resident
4
$110
$120
Parsons Shelter Resident
21
$35
$45
Parsons Shelter Non -Resident
3
$45
$55
Rotary Shelter Resident
9
$40
$50
Rotary Shelter Non -Resident
1
$50
$60
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Non -Profit
4
n/a
$50
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Resident
25
n/a
$75
NEW Kiwanis Picnic Non -Resident
4
n/a
$85
Emerson Lions Den Resident
29
$30
$40
Emerson Lions Den Non -Resident
8
$40
$50
Legion Loewen's Den Resident
35
$30
$40
Legion Loewen's Den Non -Resident
3
$40
$50
Salas Picnic Area Resident
18
$35
$40
Salas Picnic Area Non -Resident
4
$45
$50
Kofu Building Resident
6
$40
$50
Lee Jones Building Resident
32
$40
$50
4/23/99
Notes
$15 per team
$10 per team
$10 per team
$10 per team
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISONS
Current Fee Costs/Proposed Increases
Fee
Lodi
CurrenVProposed
Stockton
Manteca
Tracy
Sacramento
Roseville
Galt
Impound Vehicle
Release
$45.00/$75.00
$85.00
$50.00
$35.00
$67.00
$15.00
$20.00
CCW Applicant 2yrs)
$15.00/$25.00
$3.00
$20.00
$3.00
$3.00
$38.00
$100.00
*State Charges
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
$90.00
Total:
$105.00/$115.00
$93.00
$110.00
$93.00
$93.00
$128.00
$190.00
CCW Renewal (2yrs)
$ 3.00/$15.00
$3.00
$20.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$50.00
*State Charges
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
$42.00
Total:
$45.00/$57.00
$45.00
$62.00
$45.00
$45.00
$45.00
$92.00
Range Fees
$13.00/$25.00
No Qualification
No Qualification
No
Qualification
No
Qualification
No Qualification
No
Qualification
Massage Proprietor
$31.50
$162.20
$400.00
$35.00
$75.00 (2yr)
Invest. Fee
$250.00
$149.20 Renew
$25.00 Renew
$20.00 Renew
*State Charges
$32.00
$66.00
$32.00
$32.00
$32.00
Total:
$63.50/$313.50
$228.20
$432.00
$67.00
$4,027.50
$107.00
Massage Technician
$6.00
$120.20
$40.00
$35.00
$327.50
$75.00 (2yr)
Invest. Fee
$150.00
$107.20 Renew
$25.00 Renew
$20.00 (Renew)
*State Charges
$32.00
$66.00
$32.00
$32.00
$32.00
$32.00
Total:
$38.00/$188.00
$186.20
$72.00
$67.00
$359.50
$107.00
R
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISONS
Proposed New Fees
Fee
Lodi - Proposed
Stockton
Manteca
Tracy
Sacramento
Roseville
Galt
VIN Verification
$35.00
$46.00
$10.00
$15.00
$7.50
DUI Cost Recovery:
No
Formula
Formula
Formula
No
Arrest No Collision
$125.00
$162.00
It"
Collision No Injury
$200.00
$276.00
"
Collision With Injury
$300.00
$408.00
"
Collision Fatal
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
"
Fire Dept. Response
$150.00
$180.00
"
Other Agency
Mechanical
Sign -Off
$10.00
$22.50
$10.00
$7.50
Grape Festival*
$5,000.00
Formulal
I No
Formula
Formula
Formula
*Formula/DUI Cost Recovery: Tracy, Sacramento & Roseville all charge for DUI cost recovery. Each agency has a specific formula for caculating m
costs for each individual incident. We have concluded that the formula system is too labor intensive for staff to adopt. x
*Grape Festival Cost Recovery: Festival 1999 - $5,000.00; Festival 2000 - $10,000.00; Festival 2001 - $15,000.00 Other City formulas per officer �
for 1 hour: Stockton - $70.00; Sacramento - $40.28; Roseville - $50.00; Galt - $19.50
„71
all
04." 12: LILIN: 144 AND PC',0C i �;.VR 3J13 E-EV7 NO. 094 [Alt
DUNCAN, DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 1066
WOODBRIDGE. CA. 9.9258
TEL. NO. 204334-6717
M. 209-334-2521
CM CLERK - LODI C.TrY HALL
fax
from: BOB JOMSON
date. I April -22,1999
subject I COUNCIL CORKFSPONDENCE
...........
Pages: J -j TNCLUDING COVER PAGE
L - -.- I
NOTES:
PLEASE ROUTE TO MAYOR,
COUNCILMEMBERS, (--,M MANAGER,
DEP. CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU
APR ---22--1999 11.19 209 334+2521 P.01
y-1 12: 03 DI INCPN Fl12'k- 3::33 G =10? NO. 034 pat
BOB JOHNSON
1311 Midvale Road
Lodi, Ca 95240
April 11, .1999
Keith Land, Mayor
City of IA)di
Ptd Box 3006
Lodi, Ca 95241
Dear Mayor Land,
I a.m. writing io express to you and the tither Members of the Council my extreme
disappointment as to what took place at the Council Meeting last evening.
The Council agenda tilled for a public discussion of proposed fee increases for
various Paris and Recreation (P/R) advvides ranging Vom youth sports fees to fees
charged for facilities rental.
When the presentation began it was announced that, earlier in the day, city staff
determined that fee increases proposed for youth activities were not necessary and that
they were being deleted from the presentation. To highlight that decision, youth fee
increases were "lined out" on the overhead transparency utilized by Ms. Keeter, the
Deputy City Manager.
In 1998, the Council directed several City Departments, including PIR, to not only
reduce expenses but to also explore fee increases. In response to that direction, the P/R
staff began a fee study that was to be ultimately brought to the P/R Commission for
review. (I must point out that I was not a PIR Commissioner at the time of this review.)
(Ity Manager Flynn and P/R Director Williamson indicated that the PIR
(buzmimion assigned two members to a. committee to work with staff on this matter.
After considerable time and discussion, the subcommittee sent to the Commission the
proposed fee increases that were to be presented last evening. Mr. Flynn indicated that
the Conmrission noted 3-2 to move the proposed increases forward.
Councilmember thtchcock observed that this process took almost, a full year only
to be negated by staff the morning of the Council Meeting.
APR -22-1599 11:20- 209 334+2521 P.02
114/2:a/, "111) Pf--4oOC 4 -13,1, bIrIvY
I understand fully the role of the P/R Comufission; to be an advisory body to the
City Council. What I don't. understand is the lack of consideration or respect of the
Commission by the majority of the Council and the staff last night.
I feel it is inexcusable for staff to arbitrarily delete from a presentation something
voted on. by the. CommWion. If staff has a differing opinion or recommendation, it
should also be presented to the Council in a fair and balanced manner, At the very
least, staff should have had the courtesy of advising Council that there was a difference
of opinion between staff and Comnussion and ask that the matter be carried over to a
later date. Council could then make that detemination.
Mucb discussion was heard about the 30% recapture rate for youth sports. Staff
indicated that, because the recapture irate was above, 30%, any &e increase was
unwarranted. For that reason, they decided to amend the presentation. Mr. Williamson
indicated that the Commission knew the, recapture rate was higher than 30%.
Nevertheless, they voted to recommend a fee bicrease. That is precisely what the
Council appointed them to do - make recommendations. The Council then has the
opportunity to what it has done in the past - accept or reject the reconmendation. Staff
should not short circuit that process.
There was also conment by staff about the. 3-2 vote by the Commission. The
implication was that the Commission wasn't strongly inclined either way due to the
closeness of the vote. While far from unanimous, a 3-2 vote is just as binding. In fact,
the Council had a 3-2 vote on the. Park Naturalist position last evening.
Finally, it is disappointing to note that only one Councihnpwber expressed any
concern over the way this matter was bandied. I think I can speak unequivocally for
each P/R Commissioner that we take our appointment very seriously. While the Council
and Commis on may penodicalty disagree on policy, we, would hope that our efforts on
behalf of Lodi are always taken seriously by the Council, With Council support,
hopefully unfortunate incidents such as this will not be repeated.
Very truly ? Urs,
,
so
cc: Lodi City Council
P/R Commission
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
P/R Director
APP -22-1999 11: 20 209 334+2521 P.03
CITY COUNCIL
KEITH LAND, Mayor
STEPHEN J. MANN
Mayor Pro Tempore
SUSAN HITCHCOCK
ALAN S. NAKANISHI
PHILLIP A. PENNINO
Mr. Bob Johnson
1311 Midvale Road
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Bob:
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6702
FAX (209) 333-6807
April 27, 1999
H. DIXON FLYNN
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RANDALL A. HAYS
City Attorney
Thank you for your faxed letter of April 22"d describing the transactions which took place
at the City Council meeting of April 21, 1999 regarding Parks & Recreation fees.
I certainly appreciate you expressing your concerns about this matter. As you know, I
have the greatest respect for the Recreation Commission and the important role it plays in
this City's government.
I will always welcome any suggestions or recommendations you may have with regard to
the Recreation Commission and its interaction with the City Council.
Sincerely,
Keith Land
Mayor
KUAMR/jlt
councillltrslbj ohnson.doc
t f :, 1 It Il i ,, I I I It; e) 1 1 . a h. , ... .. , .,
BOBJOHNSON
1311 Midvale Road
Lodi, Ca 95M
April 22, 1999
Keith Land, Mayor
City of Lodi
PO Box 3006
Lodi, Ca 95241
Dear Mayor Land,
I am writing to express to you and the other Members of the Council my extreme
disappointment as to what took place at the Council Meeting last evening.
The Council agenda called for a public discussion of proposed fee increases for,
various Parks and Recreation (P/R) activities ranging from youth sports fees to fees
charged for facilities rental.
When the presentation began it was announced that, earlier in The day, city staff
detcrmined that fee increases proposed for youth activities were not necessary and that
they were being deleted front the presentation. To highlight that decision, youth flee
increases were "lined out" on the overhead transparency utilized by Ms. Keeter, the
Deputy City Manager.
In 1998, the Council directed several City Departments, including P/R, to not only
reduce expenses but to also explore fee increases. In response to that direction, the P/R
staff began a fee study that was to be ultimately brought to the PIR Comvussion for
review. (I must point out that I was not a PIR Commissioner at the time of this review.)
City Manager Flynn and P/R Director Williamson indicated that the PIR
Commission assigned two members to a committee to work with staff on this matter.
After considerable time and discussion, the subcommittee sent to the Commission the
proposed fee increases that were to be presented last evening. Mr. Flynn indicated that
the Commission voter! 3-2 to move the proposed increases forward.
Councilmember Hitchcock observed that this process took almost a full year only
to be negated by staff the morning of the Council Meeting.
RPR -22-1999 1120 209 334+2521 P.02
1!.'• U1. 4CM Hi-fi I r t,'.J N.: r..kT) .:. i. i i w V;
I understand fully the role of the P/R Couunission, to be an advisory body to the
City Council. What I don't understand is the lack of consideration or respect of the
Commission by the, majority of the Council and the staff last night.
I feel it is inexcusable for staff to arbitrarily delete from a presentation something
voted on by the Commission. If staff has a differing opinion or recommendation, it
should also be presented to the Council in a fair and balanced manner. At the very
least, staff should have had the courtesy of advising Council that there was a difference
of opinion between staff' and Coamlission and ask that the matter be carried over to a
later date. Councill could then make that. deteT.mination.
Mucb discussion was heard. about the 30% recapture rate for youth sports. Staff
indicated that, because the recapture rate was above 30%, any fee increase was
unwarranted. For that reason, they decided to amend the presentation. Mr. 'Williamson
indicated that the Commission knew the recapture rate was higher than 30%.
Nevertheless, they voted to recommend a fee bierease. That is precisely what the
Council appointed them to do - make recommendations. The Council then has the
opportunity to what it has done in the past - accept or reject the recorttmendation. Staff
should not short circuit that process.
There was also comment by staff about the 3-2 vote by the Commission. The
implication was that the Commission wasn't strongly inclined either way due to the
closeness of the vote, Wbile far from unanitnous, a 3-2 vote is just as binding. in fact,
the Council had a 3-2 vote on the Park Naturalist position last evening.
Finally, it is disappointing to note that only one Councilmeuaber expressed any
concern over the way this matter was handled. I think I can speak unequivocally for
each PIR Commissioner that we take our appointment very seriously. While the Council
and Commission may periodically disagree on policy, we would Dope that our efforts on
behalf of Lodi are always taken seriously by the Council. With Council support,
hopefully unfortunate incidents such as this will not be repeated.
Very truly y urs,
halon
cc: Lodi City Council
P/R Commission
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
PIR Director
FR -22-1999 11:20 209 334+2521 P.03
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Lodi City Council
cc: City Manager
Deputy City Manager
City Attorney Hays
From: Alice Reimche A
Date. April 22, 1999
Subject: Request from Frank Alegre for detailed audit of Hutchins Street Square
operations - 1990 - to the present date
Attached you will please find a Confidential Fax I received this date from Mr. Frank C. Alegre requesting
detailed financial records of Hutchins Street Square from 1990 through the present date.
You will note that he is confirming that I approved his request for this information at the April 21, 1999
City Council meeting. Please note that although Mr. Alegre made this request publicly at the City Council
meeting, I did not have any subsequent conversation with him regarding this request following the
meeting.
I do not have this type of information in my files; therefore, I await your direction on responding to this
request.
CIPP- -199; 10:49
FRANK C. AIXGRETRUCKING, rA.l'�l C.
5100 WEST HIGHWAY 12
LORI, CALIFORNIA 95242
(249) 334-2112 FAX (209) 367-0572
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO: � - d.O�i. FAX:
P.011102
No. oir PAGES YNcLumc. 'THIS com sHEE'i'_ a
MESSAGE:
AFI --22- -1559 09.25 P.01
N:V —1.`?. --:1.139o3 A.0:50
FRANK C. ALEGRE TRUCKING, INC -
5100 NVES7 HIGHWAY 12
WWI, CALIFORNIA 95242
(209) 334-2112 FAX (209) 367-0572,
P, 02102
SLY7.1 BROM — PARA=AL
April 22, 1999
CITY OF LODI
aMs OMCE
FAX- 333-6702
This Wer will confirm that you appruved my request at Wt night's City CounsvA
Meelfing, to Mvide me. with detailed financial records of the Hutchens Street Square,
from 1990 through the present.
Yours holy,
4?
FRANK C ALEGRE
TOTAL F - EV2
APR -22 1.999 09:25 P. 02